Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for the Environment) : I move, That the Waste Minimisation Bill be now read a third time. I speak in support of the Waste Minimisation Bill. It is time to substantially change the way we deal with waste in New Zealand. Our population and consumption are predicted to grow, which makes it imperative that we tackle the volumes of waste that are now being produced.

NICKY WAGNER (National) : I rise to support the Waste Minimisation Bill. It has been a long, long journey, but we have finally made it. National voted against the legislation at its first reading. We voted against it because it was excessively detailed and overly prescriptive. We voted against it because it tended to focus on how things should be done, rather than on the outcomes we need to achieve. We were also concerned about excessive costs in terms of compliance and enforcement and layer after layer of new bureaucracy.

However, during the select committee process, which included a series of visits to recycling and resource-recovery businesses throughout the country, and two submission processes, the bill was completely and comprehensively reworked. The Local Government and Environment Committee worked hard on the definitions required for the bill, and we got them right in most instances. There was a large amount of debate about the definition of waste. It seemed to be very difficult to find a definition that was neither too wide nor too narrow. We finally decided on a wider definition, which includes any thing that “is no longer required for its original purpose and, but for commercial or other waste minimisation activities, would be disposed of or discarded;”. Once the bill was reported back, we had representations from several organisations that highlighted unintended consequences of the original wider definition. They believed that the wider definition would create disincentives for recycling and could jeopardise New Zealand’s significant export of waste resources.

When we designed the bill, we aimed to encourage the extraction of valuable commodities from the waste stream, but this wider definition could have had a perverse effect, as it included materials that were never intended for the waste stream. The recyclers were also concerned that the wider definition could unnecessarily increase administrative and compliance costs for recycling businesses, and that would have hindered the bill’s objective of encouraging waste minimisation activities. Furthermore, any suggestion that recyclables such as scrap metal were considered to be waste by the New Zealand Government had the potential to influence importers from other countries, and New Zealand exports could have become subject to more rigorous import controls.

I came to the conclusion that unless we reworked the definition of “waste”, we could cause problems for the people and organisations that had been the most proactive in the minimisation of waste and had spearheaded the recovery of valuable resources from the waste stream. We want to attract businesses and operators to work in this area, not kick them in the shins when they have been proactive. I therefore proposed an amendment, set out on Supplementary Order Paper 219, that narrows the definition of “waste” by excluding recyclables and recoverable resources. It would have solved the recyclers’ problem and ensured that pioneer recyclers and resource-recovery businesses—such as scrap-metal merchants, paper recyclers, and organic and green-waste collectors—were not disadvantaged by the bill.

However, the Ministry for the Environment and representatives from local government were concerned that this narrower definition would impact on the ability of local councils to fulfil their responsibilities under the Local Government Act. That did not seem ideal, either. So over the adjournment I worked with Russel Norman, and with the help of the ministry and local government representatives, we came up with a compromise that everyone can live with. I am very pleased that we have been able to come up with this compromise, because we are actually all on the same side in this issue. It is important that both businesses and communities that drive waste minimisation are on board and that councils can fulfil their responsibilities.

I have to say that the process of working through the bill with the select committee, and even the process of managing the Supplementary Order Papers, which is a difficult one, has worked well. My only disappointment is that Russel Norman of the Greens, who gave his word to support my last Supplementary Order Paper but reneged after they had got everything they wanted—[Interruption] Throughout the process I worked closely and well with Nandor Tanczos, even after he had left Parliament, and it is a pity that Russel Norman does not appear to understand that a member is expected to be honourable and to keep his word.

Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam SPEAKER: Yes, that comment was unnecessary. Would the member please withdraw and apologise.

NICKY WAGNER: I withdraw and apologise, Madam Speaker.

New Zealanders are conscious that the disposal of waste, however carefully managed, does harm to our environment. Although modern landfills utilise new technologies to protect the receding environment, we still need to minimise the volume of waste we dispose of. Even transporting waste is destructive and increases our carbon footprint. So the bill introduces some new tools.

I believe that the establishment of product stewardship schemes is perhaps one of the most important parts of the bill. Although some very successful voluntary product stewardship schemes are in existence already, their inclusion in the bill will highlight the need for these schemes and encourage their development. The big advantage of a product stewardship scheme is that manufacturers and distributors of a product are incentivised to think about the product’s whole life cycle. They are in a position to redesign the product in light of its future use and its final disposal. Too often when products are created, no thought is given to their final disposal. We need manufacturers to make smart decisions at the beginning of the design process.

It is easy to make good decisions—such as the use of recyclable material rather than non-recyclable material—at the beginning of a product’s life cycle. The worst products are those that are a mixture of different materials, as they are almost impossible to recycle. Some very successful voluntary schemes are in place, such as those of Resene Paints and Fisher and Paykel—and we have made sure that they are eligible for accreditation under this bill. The Minister can also declare certain products to be priority products, and they must become part of a product stewardship scheme. For that to happen, the waste from the product must cause significant environmental harm, there must be benefits from reusing, reducing, recycling, or recovering the product, and the waste must be able to be managed effectively under a product stewardship scheme.

We heard at the Local Government and Environment Committee that many companies and industry sectors were being very proactive in managing their wastes, but some industries were struggling to get all of their members involved. It is the same old story. The majority of people in organisations are prepared to do the right thing, but there is a minority of free-riders who are not prepared to contribute. In these cases a mandated scheme will ensure that everyone is included, and it will be beneficial for those who are already carrying the costs of managing their waste responsibly.

The imposition of a waste disposal levy was a hot topic for debate in our caucus, but we finally decided that, as a user-pays fee and an economic instrument designed to encourage waste minimisation, it would be useful. We wanted to reward people and companies for minimising their waste and penalise those who do not, and as everyone is already looking for a cheaper way, those who make the effort to minimise their waste can save money.

We were also keen to find a way to finance capital expenditure for waste minimisation projects. At present most projects are paid for by the ratepayer via local government, and again, everyone, regardless of his or her waste behaviour, pays the same. Proceeds from the waste levy will be split fifty-fifty between territorial authorities, on a population basis, and a centralised contestable fund for waste minimisation projects. The contestable fund will be available to any business or organisation with a waste minimisation project.

Territorial authorities can spend levy money only to promote or achieve waste minimisation in accordance with their waste management and minimisation plan. My Supplementary Order Paper—No 221—includes a third criterion that requires territorial authorities, when funding waste services through the levy, to treat private enterprise, council-controlled organisations, and their own in-house operations on an equal basis. This is to deal with an issue raised by waste service operators. They were concerned that councils could use the levy to subsidise council services that may unfairly undercut private enterprise schemes.

Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) : The Waste Minimisation Bill is perhaps the most comprehensive and significant piece of waste legislation to come before Parliament, and it is about time.

About 3.2 million tonnes of waste goes to landfills each year in New Zealand and, according to the Ministry for the Environment, each year we throw away about $250 million worth of potentially reusable resources. Not only is this a huge waste of resources but also landfills contribute to New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions and are a significant source of toxic leachate—particularly, as we have seen, in places like Horowhenua.

This bill is not a silver bullet. It is more an enabling bill than anything else, as it provides a framework through which these problems can be addressed. The bill creates a framework for the Government to respond to the growing waste problem, but that work has already begun. It is worth acknowledging that individuals, councils, communities, and businesses have already begun this process as best they can. The Ministry for the Environment has also contributed to the response, despite the absence of this legislation. But with this bill, Parliament and the Government are playing catch-up.

The bill has three key elements. The first is the levy. The levy disincentivises waste generation. Effectively, it internalises some of the costs that waste generates. The Greens believe that using price signals is an important part—but it is only one part—of dealing to the waste problem. The second part is product stewardship, which requires producers and importers to take more responsibility for end-of-life collection, diversion, and disposal. More important, it will motivate manufacturers to redesign their products and packaging to reduce the amount of waste created in the first place—at the beginning of the pipe. We need to redesign production and packaging so that fewer materials are used, and we need to ensure that products can actually be recycled. The bill allows the Minister for the Environment to regulate to create mandatory product stewardship schemes where needed, and to provide stricter targets for existing industry-sponsored schemes. We are behind the ball in this area, and this provides an opportunity for us to speed up.

The bill establishes the Waste Advisory Board. Some people asked why we need a new organisation when we have the Ministry for the Environment. The ministry is currently giving a lot of attention to waste, but that has not always been the case and it will not necessarily continue to be the case, so it is good to have a board that drives it along. The ministry’s work programme depends to some degree on the tastes of the Minister and the chief executive officer, so it is subject to variation. In addition, like all Government departments, the ministry has a significant turnover and has some difficulty holding on to institutional knowledge. Although I share the fear of establishing a self-perpetuating bureaucracy, I am still convinced that a small, independent organisation with representation from different sectors involved in waste minimisation and able to play a leadership and advocacy role will be enormously useful.

This bill is now a Government bill, but it did not start that way. It was drafted by my colleague Mike Ward and it was guided by Nandor Tanczos from the ballot to its second reading. I took the bill through its Committee of the whole House stage, and now the Government has adopted the bill to ensure that it is passed before the election.

A number of amendments were made at the Committee stage, and it is worth talking about them briefly. The Minister and the Greens made some minor drafting changes to Part 1, including the heading, and to clause 62. We clarified clause 54, and added a new clause 97 to allow the Waste Advisory Board nomination process to begin prior to the Act’s commencement, and that has been handy. National MP Nicky Wagner also tabled a number of amendments. Two minor amendments were made, one of which extended the stockpile time frame to 6 months, and one of which amends clause 30 to protect private enterprise schemes from competitive disadvantage. The Committee unanimously accepted these amendments once they were redrafted by officials.

A more significant National Party amendment, put forward on Supplementary Order Paper 218, would have delayed the commencement of the whole Act until July 2009. Waste is an urgent problem that needs urgent action, so we were very glad that Nicky Wagner withdrew that amendment after discussion. There was a more contentious amendment around the title of the bill, but on the advice of the Parliamentary Counsel Office, and because we did not see any particular need for the amendment, we did not support it.

Nicky Wagner put forward a major amendment on Supplementary Order Paper 219 to the definition of “waste” that would have had a very significant effect; we were concerned that it would scuttle the whole bill. The bill was designed to provide tools to address the whole waste sphere, including the waste industry, because the whole purpose is to reduce the generation of waste, reduce the waste that goes to landfills, and maximise recovered waste. Our officials’ advice was that the National Party amendment would have had severe ramifications, including preventing the spending of levy money on recycling, because waste minimisation would no longer include recovered materials. We were disappointed that such a far-reaching amendment was put forward at very short notice during the Committee stage, and we wished that more advice had been sought from officials and local government earlier on.

To save the bill, we negotiated during the adjournment with Nicky Wagner, Ministry for the Environment officials, and the scrap metal industry. We negotiated a compromise amendment that would address the specific concerns of some industries while keeping the bill intact. Diverted materials were split off from waste, and the definition of “waste minimisation” was altered to include both. Industries that trade in waste material can therefore consider their material to be diverted material rather than waste. However, as a consequence, local government has reduced powers to license and to collect information. It can do this only for waste and not for diverted materials. Fortunately, the Ministry for the Environment can collect information on all materials, whether discarded or diverted, and we hope it actually does this and shares it with local government as appropriate, so that local government can get the information it needs.

I acknowledge the people who played a key role in this bill. One of the early minds behind this kind of legislation, of course, was Rod Donald, who was a very keen recycler and ran many campaigns to reduce waste. I thank Mike Ward and Nandor Tanczos. I also acknowledge Chris Teo-Sherrell, who was important in the writing of the bill, and Quentin Duthie, who also played a very important role. I thank the 316 people who submitted on the original bill, and the 125 who submitted on Supplementary Order Paper 150. The vast majority of submitters were very supportive of the intent of the bill, if not of the detail. I thank the three successive Ministers for the Environment, David Benson-Pope, David Parker, and Trevor Mallard, as well as their staff, and in particular Steve Hurring, who played a key role. I thank the Community Recycling Network, the Packaging Council, the Waste Management Institute of New Zealand, the New Zealand Business Council for Sustainable Development, local government, and, of course, the scrap metal industry for their input, and I would very much like to thank the officials from the Ministry for the Environment.

The Green Party has a goal of achieving a waste-free Aotearoa New Zealand by 2020, with clear and significant progress by 2010. A waste-free society is essential to the well-being of people and the sustainability of the planet. Waste is not an inevitable part of production and consumption. Materials must be part of cycles, rather than linear processes in which they are used once then discarded. Full social and environmental costs should be taken into account when making decisions about the creation, management, and disposal of wastes. We think this bill is a step along the path towards a waste-free Aotearoa New Zealand, and we commend it to the House.

JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) : It gives me great pleasure to have an opportunity to speak in the third reading debate on the Waste Minimisation Bill. I want to compliment one or two people. Firstly, I say that of all the select committees I have been involved in, the Local Government and Environment Committee members worked the most productively together. Our politics were put aside and we grappled with the issue. For the likes of me, coming from the back of the Hokianga where we chop down trees and dig things, my whole attitude to this issue has changed significantly. It has been a steep learning curve for me. I thank the select committee generally, but I compliment Nicky Wagner, who has done a tremendous amount of work on this legislation. She deserves to be recognised for the work she has done. I also say to the chairperson of the committee, Moana Mackey, that she did a good job.

Other members of the committee who need to be recognised as we go through this third reading debate include Mike Ward, who introduced the bill, although I have to say he did not do a lot of work on it because, of course, he left Parliament, if that is the polite way to put it. But the one who did do a lot of work on it was Nandor Tanczos, and we need to recognise the work he did. Having him on the select committee with me was also a steep learning curve, because he is not the sort of person I would normally have a close association with. But I found that the more one gets to know Nandor, the more one gets to like him. We established quite a good friendship during that time and when we were at a couple of conferences together, and I suspect that that friendship will be enduring. For all the people who may think that Parliament is a strange place—and it is—I tell them that lots of good work actually gets done in Parliament, particularly in the select committees, and that we can have friendships across parties. So I just make those points in speaking to the third reading.

The other thing I would like to have recorded in my address is my belief that on these sorts of issues New Zealand has come a long way but still has a long way to go. This bill is but a first step towards our actually addressing an issue that needs more public focus. One of the unfortunate things that happens in our society, mainly through ignorance, is that we waste a lot of resource, and I must say that it was a shame that Nicky’s amendment was not accepted and the title was not changed to the “Waste Minimisation and Resource Recovery Bill”. All the committee recognised that we are talking about the use of our resources—the better use of our resources. One of the things that struck me—and it changed my mind on this whole issue—was that there is so much more that can be done and should be done.

The unfortunate thing in the way in which we implement our waste management at the moment is that the ratepayers and the public—but the ratepayers specifically—pay for the cost of our disposal of waste, and that is quite a huge burden on the ratepayers of this country. One of the things that fascinated me when I went to South Australia to study its system of waste disposal, where it uses container deposit legislation as the base of its resource recovery, was that that state has the lowest “per ratepayer cost” of all states right across Australia. I think, from memory, that the cost is less than half of that for every other state. That is because South Australia has a system whereby more emphasis is put on the upfront responsibility than on the end-user. That makes manufacturers and producers of items far more responsible, and it also gives small businesses an opportunity to have a cash flow. Most of us will remember the days when we used to get 2c for returning a lemonade bottle, the Boy Scout and Girl Guide bottle drives, and those other things we used to do. That is the sort of system that is run in South Australia.

I mentioned yesterday in the Committee debate that car manufacturers came to the select committee and said they would like to see us put a $500 extra cost on to every new car, which could be deposited so that at the end use of the car, rather than have it disposed of by being chucked over a bank, burnt out in a bush somewhere, or left on the side of the road, the car would have a value of at least $500, which would be meaningful to some people. Most people would want to redeem that, and this is the sort of system that can happen when we have container deposit legislation. I think that in time we will move more and more towards that sort of system. The framework is here for that to happen. At the moment it works only on priority products, but I see a time when we will move to that whole system right across the country, and, quite honestly, I for one will be supportive of it. I would encourage it to happen as rapidly as it can.

One controversial issue was the levy. A whole lot of people wanted the levy, such as local government, the producers—the whole system. Everybody thought they should have it because they had the best reason for it. But the levy, actually, is just a step. Its whole purpose is to impose a cost on people who want to dispose of their waste rather than reuse it. So it is a punitive measure, in that regard. It is designed to try to encourage people to understand that if we do not treat our waste as a resource, there is a cost for having that attitude. Its whole purpose is to change the attitudes of the nation, and in time it will. I do see a time when the levy will continue to increase to a level where it will be very costly to dispose of our rubbish in a landfill, as opposed to having the opportunity to redeem that rubbish and probably get a return on it. When we get to that stage, this country will seriously be starting to make some progress on the proper system of resource recovery, rather than waste.

I for one look forward to the day when we get rid of the word “waste” in this context, and when we all look at the issue of waste as a resource and not as waste, at all. Quite honestly, when that happens, this nation will be able to proudly stand up and say that we are one of the leaders in the world in this regard. We are a way from that yet, but I do see the time coming when that will happen. South Australia, for example, and a number of countries, have already moved a lot further ahead than we have, but this framework gives us the opportunity to make great strides ahead.

Quite honestly, I am proud to have been one of the people who has been involved in this waste minimisation legislation. As I said, for me, personally, it has been a steep learning curve. I have enjoyed being involved in the whole issue of this legislation, and I conclude by thanking all the members on the select committee. Funnily enough, we did manage to put our politics aside and work constructively together to end up with legislation that is workable and will be good for this nation.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) : Tēnā koe, Madam Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tātou e te Whare. In the world of discarded lifestyles, plastic wraparounds, high-impact packaging, and personal attacks in Parliament, the Waste Minimisation Bill is a breath of fresh air. On this day when we mourn the loss of life from 9/11 and the loss of liberty suffered in the police terrorism raids by those who are before the courts in Auckland, we recognise also the way in which the rampant exploitation of Papatūānuku and all her resources forces us to acknowledge our own fragile place on this earth, and the urgent need for us all to take a reality check on how we respect our world.

Let me extend my congratulations to my brother Nandor Tanczos on the effort he put into this bill to encourage us to reduce waste. Given how much waste is generated by this place, I can understand why he got out before he was suffocated by the garbage that often masquerades as parliamentary debate. I know that he had to put up with a lot of nit-picking from businesses that over-package products in order to enhance sales, from corporate entities that generate even more trash than product, and from politicians who must be getting a kickback for nodding when multinationals say they are already doing a lot to reduce waste, and to do even more would impact on the viability of their businesses. Yeah, right! I know too that because of some of those compromises, this bill is not exactly what he would have wanted, but I offer my congratulations to him anyway on pushing it, and pushing it to the point where this legislation is to become a reality.

We particularly like the product stewardship scheme to make producers responsible for their products right throughout a product’s life cycle. That will encourage producers to use more environmentally friendly products and discourage the huge waste that is part of our society today. Unlike the emissions trading scheme, where the big polluters will not have to pay for years, this bill will encourage everyone to reduce waste or pay for it from day one—be they big producers or small producers. That is future thinking, and we like it.

We like the waste streams idea of charging importers an extra $5 for every tyre that is brought into Aotearoa, to put the brakes on importers bringing in container-loads of second-hand tyres. That charge has to be a good idea, given that 5 million tyres are dumped in Aotearoa every year. Five million car, truck, and industrial tyres are dumped in landfills or chucked into our rivers and on to our paddocks. They are not just the nice little tyres that people use for flower gardens, worm farms, to hang over the swimming hole, to make into little rubber swan sculptures, or to use in the sandpit. I refer also to the big, ugly, thick rubber tyres that leach toxic waste into our rivers and landfills.

We know that the bill was changed a lot at the Local Government and Environment Committee and with a whole trash pile of Supplementary Order Papers. Although the extra amendments and changes may have reduced the bureaucracy and simplified the bill, unfortunately—and this is a bit like what occurred with regard to the emissions trading scheme—they have also held back some of the good bits as well. For instance, our councils actually wanted to have stronger legislation but felt their proposals had been watered down by extensive lobbying from commercial groups opposed to the idea that they should accept responsibility for the waste they create.

The Māori Party is happy to support this bill, because it is consistent with our long-term call for the Government to take responsibility for the dumping of toxic waste, which has caused dioxin poisoning in Taranaki and widespread health problems for the people of Paritūtū, including birth defects, behavioural problems, diabetes, and cancer. It will help to address some of the concerns we have raised about the contaminated former sawmill site at Minginui, and the likelihood of chemicals leaching from the landfill site into local waterways and streams, and give weight to the advocacy of Sawmill Workers Against Poison—people like Joe Harawira and Gwenda Paul, who have been fighting to repair the damage created at more than 600 former sawmills by chemicals that been proven to have adverse effects on our lands, our rivers, and our people. The bill fits in with our call for Kiwis to take responsibility for Aotearoa. It is a refreshing change and a step in the right direction. To that end, the Māori Party is pleased to support it at this third and final reading. Kia ora, Madam Assistant Speaker.

MOANA MACKEY (Labour) : It is a pleasure to take a brief call on the third reading of the Waste Minimisation Bill. I think it has all been said before here this afternoon, and in the previous readings as well. But I do want to thank the Local Government and Environment Committee. Most of the processes we go through in that committee are just fine and we work together quite well, but it was particularly nice to be working on a bill towards a common purpose. We all agreed on the intent, and we all wanted to get the best outcome possible from the bill before us. The bill went through a rather dramatic transformation at the select committee. It was there for so long because, given the extent of the changes, we wanted to give submitters the opportunity to come back and submit on the extensive Supplementary Order Paper that ended up becoming part of the bill.

I pay tribute to all the former members of the Green Party under whose names this bill was registered. Mike Ward was one, and also Nandor Tanczos, who took the bill through the majority of the select committee hearings. I really do want to thank the select committee for the numerous meetings we had during adjournments so that we could get the bill passed before the election. I congratulate Russel Norman, whose name now heads this bill. Even though it is here as a Government bill, it is still a Green Party bill. We just want to make sure that the Government acknowledges that, and that the bill is passed.

This is a very important bill. I doubt whether this is the last Waste Minimisation Bill we will ever see before the House. This really is the first step. There will be further iterations, I am sure, as different needs arise and issues change. But it certainly is one of the most important bills we have seen go through this House. It marks a sea change in the way we deal with waste and the way we look at recycling. This is more than something that is feel-good; it is something that is good for the economy and good for the environment, and it needed to be taken a step further. I am very happy to commend this bill to the House. It is very pleasing to see it finally being passed.

MARK BLUMSKY (National) : This is probably the last time I will officially stand and speak outside my valedictory speech, and I feel very good about the fact that I am speaking in a very positive way about the Waste Minimisation Bill; it has been a very positive process. I acknowledge the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee—[Interruption]—and I agree with Moana Mackey that it was good. We “did good”, I feel. We were an example to Parliament, and it is a pity that many of the others do not follow it—if I can be so bold. But this is not my valedictory speech, so I will not go there. The process was good and as a committee we worked very well. Also, the officials were brilliant. The advice we had from them through the transition was sharp and smart. All of them “did good”. They did us proud. So from that point of view I was impressed, as well.

It was nice to meet so many of the community through the whole submission process. I acknowledge the fact that the member John Carter was also on the committee—not that Mr Carter mentioned either me or you in his speech, Madam Assistant Speaker, but that is fine; we will pay him back later. Was it not wonderful, though, to meet the community, as we did? We met wonderful people who were passionate about the environment, about waste and the right way to handle it, and about the fact that we would be stuffing up the environment if we were not careful. I was in awe of that community. It made me feel very humble, actually, to see how people in the community out there really do care, get involved, do the hard yards, and get their hands really dirty in trying to right the wrongs. I also acknowledge that there are some businesses out there doing the same thing. We met quite a few in the business community who were also caring and working very hard to make a difference and to have an impact on the global issue of waste.

This bill had its first reading on 14 June 2006, so it has taken its time to get here. It has not been a quick process. As those who have been listening have heard, the bill is very different from what it was in 2006. It is good that we have stayed with it. Most people, at the end of the day, agreed with the objectives of the bill. People cared. And who would not? Waste is a problem. But waste is also an opportunity. I go back to quote Professor Storey at Victoria University, who said that waste is an opportunity; it is just a “resource in the wrong place”. That is one of those quotes that will stay with me.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Like you.

MARK BLUMSKY: I will acknowledge that, too! There were a lot of parts in the bill that were not so well liked, and we heard that through the 316 submissions. So off it went back into the kitchen, where there was a lot of cooking before it came out the other end in September last year, and 125 submitters then had the chance to comment. I was reading Nandor’s second reading speech, and he made a comment that I actually liked and noted. The new bill that came through, to quote his words “keeps the bones of the original bill and alters the flesh.” It certainly did that. It was great to see that the community was very supportive and even business, in its commentary through the submission process, admitted that the time has come for something to be done.

From my point of view, on the things that were not changed, I am a fan of the financial driver, the levy; I think the levy is a good tool. The levy, as members would have heard, starts at $10 a tonne and will be reviewed in 2 years—that was a change we made in the select committee process—and then every 3 years. I personally agree with the New Zealand Business Council for Sustainable Development, which says that $30 is the fee that the levy should be hit at, not $10. I think $30 will have an impact, and it is an impact that we need. So from my point of view I am glad the review is there in 2 years and it is nice to see the review come along every 3 years.

It was wonderful talking about the levy, because all sides told us that they could spend it. My colleague John Carter covered that beautifully. We set it on a 50:50 split, which I think was a fair way. Local government gets 50 percent of the levy and a contestable fund gets 50 percent of the levy. We saw through the select committee process that some territorial local authorities are doing wonderful work in this area. But there are some that should be ashamed of themselves and need to revisit their whole attitude towards waste and look to the better ones—and I will not mention them—for best practice and for an example of the way forward.

I, as I said, was very pleased that the levy ended up being split, and, even more important, that it can be spent only on waste minimisation initiatives and is not to be used for councils to put in the big pot and then diverted into other ways of spending. We need to be very careful in monitoring the review process, so that the money allocated is spent for the right reasons by local bodies, and is not used, if you like, to subsidise rates, because that actually is not the purpose. It is to minimise waste. The levy will be used for research through the contestable fund. Those who want to do research can apply. Those who want to do capital projects can apply. We had through the submission process a number of rather significant businesses wanting to do big projects that felt that a start-up ability—a funding ability—would generate a lot more enthusiasm from their shareholders. There is also seed funding. At the select committee we saw some wonderful community initiatives that, if they had some seed funding, would grow; we must applaud those.

One of the things we have to be careful of, and I think Nicky Wagner mentioned it, is that we cannot let local authorities use the levy to bump out the providers who are doing a good job. We talked about that a number of times. The levy is not there to bump out companies like Green Fingers that are doing a fantastic job. They are not to be bumped out by a local authority using a levy to subsidise competition in that area.

I am a huge fan of the product stewardship that came through the bill. I think it makes the producers, the importers, the retailers, the consumers and others take responsibility for the environmental effects of products. Hearing John Carter talk again about the container deposit, I tell members that we came close, very close, to putting container deposit through the bill by name. There was certainly a lot of commentary from the business community about that, for sure. I personally am a fan; I think it does make a difference and will make a difference. I hope the framework allows container deposit legislation to be brought in, so that community groups will have a funding stream that is not often available. Kiwis want to see recycling and want to see practical measures to tackle the issue of waste. The recovery side of the process will enable that. There is an issue about recovery; we are not good at it. We will be better at it. This bill has enabled a focus on it.

As I say, to finish on, it is nice to stand here having worked through something with a group of people I enjoyed working with to make a positive impact, and I look forward, over time, to seeing waste being minimised.

MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) : I will possibly take 10 minutes, but may take less time. The Waste Minimisation Bill will significantly alter the way we deal with waste, and will encourage the sustainable use of resources.

I acknowledge the huge quantum leap in this area over the past few years. Indeed, I congratulate the awardees at last night’s Waikato Sustainable Business Network Awards—a major gala occasion in my city of Hamilton. Sadly, I was not able to be there, for which I apologise. I think those awards are indicative that businesses around the country are doing cutting-edge work in this area, and that is excellent.

It was a great pleasure to be a substitute member of the Local Government and Environment Committee, which considered the original bill. What an incredible eye-opener it was for me personally to see the amazing waste minimisation enterprises that are now out there. I believe that, as a country, we are taking a quantum leap through this bill and other measures to realise the truth, hopefully, of New Zealand’s clean, green image. I think, to a degree, there has been an element of myth to it. Hopefully, this bill will give our self-image—the image we as a country want—a degree of truth.

Finally, as a Waikato member of Parliament I reiterate my appreciation of the huge contribution in terms of leadership that Nandor Tanczos showed in this area. I believe that it will be one of the lasting legacies of his time in this Parliament. Frankly, we in the Waikato are very, very proud of Nandor and his wonderful contribution. I am equally proud of this Government, which took a member’s bill and turned it into a Government bill, and I am equally proud of the very good work of the Local Government and Environment Committee, which was led by my good colleague and friend Moana Mackey. I commend the bill to the House.

JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) : I seek leave of the House—and I have just checked this with the chairman of the Local Government and Environment Committee and with the Minister in charge of the Waste Minimisation Bill—to table a paper that I forgot to table in my third reading speech. It is to do with the solids produced from waste-water treatment; it is a short statement about how the bill affects that.

• Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

• Bill read a third time.

Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) : I move, That the Judicature (High Court Rules) Amendment Bill be now read a second and a third time. I would like to express my gratitude to the Justice and Electoral Committee for its prompt consideration of this bill and to say I fully support its recommended amendments to the House.

The bill will implement a major rewrite of the rules that govern civil proceedings in the High Court, by replacing the current rules that are contained in schedule 2 of the Judicature Act 1908. These rules facilitate the expeditious, inexpensive, and just dispatch of core business or otherwise assist the due administration of justice. The new rules improve the structure and language of that important legislation, thereby improving their comprehension, and new provisions will ensure a consistent approach. The bill represents the first stage in improvements for civil procedure, which will commence in the High Court on 1 February 2009. Following the enactment of this legislation, the Rules Committee will finalise new District Court Rules, which will take effect later in 2009.

The reforms to the High Court Rules represent many years of endeavour by the Rules Committee. The project was led by the previous and present chairpersons of the Rules Committee, Justice Baragwanath and Justice Fogarty. It has greatly benefited from the considerable legal knowledge and drafting skills of Dr Donald Mathieson QC, special counsel for the Parliamentary Counsel Office.

The new rules closely follow the content of the current rules, and the majority of the changes could be made as secondary legislation. However, there are certain changes that require parliamentary approval because they go beyond mere practice and procedure. The main changes that require parliamentary authorisation are, firstly, to extend the power currently enjoyed by the District Court, so the High Court can make an attachment order to a person’s source of income in order to assist with the recovery of a civil debt; secondly, to clarify the rules of service outside New Zealand for civil court proceedings; thirdly, to clarify the High Court’s powers to grant interim relief in support of proceedings before a foreign court; and, fourthly, to enable the electronic filing of documents—called e-filing—from a date to be established by Order in Council.

The quality of work that has gone into this bill is reflected in the small number of amendments recommended by the select committee, as tabled in its report.

I express my gratitude to all those who helped to bring this bill to fruition. I have already made mention of some people, but others who have made a major contribution are the Chief Justice, Dame Sian Elias; the Chief High Court Judge, Justice Randerson; and other judges of the High Court. I also specifically acknowledge Mr Christopher Finlayson MP, as a member of the Rules Committee from 1999 to 2005; and also my parliamentary colleague Charles Chauvel, who has had some input into this bill; many senior members of the legal profession and law schools of our universities; Mr George Tanner QC, the former Chief Parliamentary Counsel; and many counsels from the Parliamentary Counsel Office. The consultation phase also involved groups of legal executives and senior court registrars, who closely examined the prescribed forms.

I would, finally, like to thank the House for supporting this bill through this expedited process. I gladly commend the bill to the House.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) : I want to thank the Minister in charge of the bill, the Hon Rick Barker, for those generous comments, and endorse what he said about thanks being due to many people who have made this very important project finally come to fruition. Indeed, the Judicature (High Court Rules) Amendment Bill has had, by the standards of this House at least, a very speedy passage, but there was a very lengthy gestation period. As I said in my first reading speech, the project really started in 2002, and got under way properly in 2004, and I will say a little bit more about that shortly. The Minister has accurately summarised the changes made by the Justice and Electoral Committee. There were not many changes, and I think it is, as the Minister said, a tribute to the work of those in the Parliamentary Counsel Office, particularly Dr Mathieson, who have done such a good job that the changes were few and far between. Indeed the opportunity was taken, given that this bill was going through the House, to make a couple of minor changes, for example, spelling out, through the new clause 4A, the functions of the Chief High Court Judge.

This is an extremely important project, because procedure is not just an aspect of justice; it is essential to justice. The key changes introduced by this reform are as follows. The first one, which is mentioned in the purpose clause, is to state and set out the rules in clear English, and in a logical order. In 1985 the former Code of Civil Procedure was replaced, and the new High Court Rules were introduced. At that time they were in a tidy order, but the passage of time and the encrustation approach to law reform in this area meant that the rules were something of a pigsty, and they needed to be reordered in a logical order, and in plain English.

The second point, and again it is stated in the purpose clause of the bill, is to provide for electronic filing. Subpart 16 in Part 5 has those rules although we do not yet have electronic filing of documents, unlike most other jurisdictions of our kind. I certainly express the hope on the behalf of the Opposition that we soon get electronic filing in this country, because it is long overdue and it will cut down the enormous amount of paper required in litigation.

The third major reform is Part 17, which deals with the enforcement of judgments. When the High Court Rules were reformed in 1985, this was one area that did not receive detailed consideration. Even though this exercise was mainly in the nature of a clean-up, when the rules were being reviewed an opportunity was afforded to look at the rules relating to execution or enforcement, and Part 17 does have some major changes. I refer, for example, to Subpart 4, which deals with attachment of judgments—bringing into the High Court procedures that have been in the District Court for some time.

The fourth reform, in Part 30, simply restates the existing rules relating to judicial review that are currently set out in the High Court Rules. I have a feeling that these rules will undergo some changes in the next few months, because the Law Commission has recently published a report on prerogative writs and this type of judicial review. I agree with the recommendations the commission makes.

The fifth reform is in Part 32, which deals with freezing orders. These orders, sometimes known as Mareva injunctions, are very important orders of the court. They were developed in England many years ago and, by a process of adoption of precedents from England, were adopted in New Zealand and in other jurisdictions. They are instant freezing orders, and are a very important ancillary tool when one commences proceedings and there is a fear that, if the ordinary rules are applied, by the time one gets to the execution of a judgment, assets could have been dissipated or removed out of the jurisdiction. So that is what the Mareva injunction is all about. Part 32 recognises the freezing order, and sets out some of the principles relating to obtaining these orders that are developed from authorities over the last 30 years.

The final reform relates to search orders, which arose out of procedures in England: the development of what is known as the Anton Piller order, particularly important in intellectual property litigation, but of general application now. Part 33 not only recognises the Anton Piller order—which is to be called a search order—but also sets out requirements for the grant of such an order and the obligations on the applicant.

Although most of the work that is being done could be said to be stylistic—putting things in plain English—there has been an opportunity to tidy up a couple of areas and reform the areas I have mentioned. As the Minister I think fairly acknowledged, there is still much to do. The Rules Committee is currently working on reform of the District Court Rules, but I think it will have to come back and look at some of these rules over the next few years. I think it is timely to review case management and the way to give evidence. In recent years evidence-in-chief has been given by way of brief of evidence or statement. As Mr Fairbrother would know, this was the subject of a lot of discussion when he and I were on a subcommittee looking at the Evidence Bill in 2006, and largely due to his and my efforts a subsection (2) was included in section 83 on the ordinary way of giving evidence. A written statement may be given in evidence only if it is the personal statement of the maker and does not contain a statement that is otherwise inadmissible under this Act. I regret to say there are many statements filed in court in civil proceedings that do not comply with section 83. I think those rules need to be toughened up.

The other areas requiring reform are the rules that relate to discovery. These are currently far too general and do not recognise the fact that there has been an explosion in the number of documents—both actual documents and e-documents—in recent years, which make rules developed in the 19th century wholly inappropriate for discovery. There need to be reviews of rules relating to appeals; electronic filing, as I said; and possibly also it is timely to look at whether there should be mandatory mediation in certain High Court proceedings. Just last week we were looking at another one of the Minister’s bills—the Family Courts Matters Bill. It is very fine legislation, which has extensive rules relating to mediation and Family Court proceedings. I think it is perhaps timely to consider whether those sorts of rules should be introduced to the High Court Rules.

Then, quite apart from rules, other major reforms are required for the law of limitation, the Crown Proceedings Act, and the Declaratory Judgments Act; and both the Judicature Act and District Courts Act need to be tidied up. I believe that this Government has not paid enough attention to civil justice over the last 9 years. The delays in the civil justice system are shocking. Sometimes it takes months to obtain a hearing on an interlocutory matter, and that is why this House needs to pay more attention to those matters.

I agree that the person who deserves the most thanks is Justice Baragwanath. He is the person responsible for this project. He is the one who ensured that it has come to fruition. George Tanner, former Chief Parliamentary Counsel, did an excellent job and engaged Dr Don Mathieson, a former professor of law and leading barrister, to do the work. Dr Mathieson can be very proud of this work. He has given to New Zealand in so many ways over the years, as the lead counsel for the Crown in some of its most difficult cases, and he has done a wonderful job here. I also want to express my thanks to members of the legal profession, many of whom gave hours of work to the reform of these rules. I particularly refer to those who worked on the part dealing with the enforcement of judgments.

So it is great that this project has finally come to fruition. As I said, it really got under way in 2004 but I do not think it is enough to rest on our laurels. There is much more to be done. Civil justice deserves a lot more attention than it has received from this Government over the last 9 years.

RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) : I am delighted to follow the previous speaker, because I am aware of the tremendous input he has had into the formulation of these High Court Rules. About half a decade ago someone kindly thought I should be kept in the email loop of the development of the rules, and my email box has been continually full of email changes and interesting discourse, as, by electronic means, changes have been debated—sometimes restrained and sometimes not so restrained.

The rules are often mistaken for being procedural and a hiccup to the administration of justice, but in my experience at the Bar, which was not concentrated around the civil courts, the rules were in fact often a very powerful tool, which, if used properly, cut down much wasted time and expense in litigation. I have to say, regarding the formation of the rules, I was pleased to find when I came into the House today and looked at rule 6.6 that it brings into the rules the common law I was responsible for developing in the Jenssen case, where we argued that a caveat that was due to lapse after 14 days could be extended on service of proper application. As the solicitor we served the application by facsimile, and the opposing side, an oil company, opposed that as being an improper form of service. His Honour Justice Gallen upheld that facsimile, in its then primitive form, was an appropriate form of service, and that was the common law development of the service rules, which are now taken into a codified form in rule 6.6 of these rules.

Then I turned to rule 17.83, which contains the enforcement provisions. I looked at that because many years ago I was responsible for acting for an individual who was continually being arrested for camping on a piece of land in the Heretaunga. Eventually he was imprisoned for disobeying a High Court order, and he was held in custody indefinitely, under what is now rule 17.83, because he refused to obey an order by the judge, His Honour Justice McGechan. Time and time again that individual came before the court and time and time again he was held in custody, because he would not move from his habit of camping on the land. He claimed it was family land that was taken dishonourably by the Crown. The Crown claimed it was not family land, but I dare say it is now going to be resolved by way of a Treaty claim.

That experience in those days reinforced to me how powerful the rules can be, because in fact the High Court Rules enabled a citizen who believed he had a grievance to be held in custody on an almost open-ended basis. I never saw how that man was finally released, but I assume he was released because he agreed to move off the property, and thus came the end to his time in detention.

The other area in which I had some involvement before I came into this place was the Anton Piller order procedure. I remember being involved in obtaining an Anton Piller order just prior to my leaving practice, and that was a journey into the unknown. I am glad to see that Anton Piller orders are now codified, and for someone not frequently using Anton Piller order procedures, that may be a little bit easier to follow.

I have to say that in the adversarial processes of the High Court we do need rules as detailed and specific as the rules we have here. I listened to the comments of my friend Mr Finlayson, who spoke of the work required in the District Court. I have to say that my recent experience in the Privileges Committee, and also an experience I had when I conducted a case in the coroner’s court about 2 months ago, indicate to me that when we move to inquisitorial justice, much as is happening in the Family Court, then there is the need for a better set of rules so that those involved in the inquisitorial process understand what the procedures will be.

My experience in the Family Court, which is now some time ago; my experience in the coroner’s court, which was just 2 months ago, under the new Act; and my recent experience in the Privileges Committee show that no matter how well a tribunal endeavours to work through the inquisitorial process, if there is a lack of clarity of rules, then intuition is not always the best guide to procedure. So I welcome Mr Finlayson’s suggestion that there is a movement to clarify the District Court Rules, which have always seemed to me to be a little strange in that they stand apart from the High Court Rules, but there are differences in practice, of course. But I do think that the Law Commission and the Rules Committee should also investigate the tribunals of this land, which are usually an inquisitorial process, where advocacy is involved by paid advocates, because the inquisitorial process without a clear set of rules leads to intuitive reasoning and intuitive rule-making, which is not consistently followed from case to case or in different tribunals.

These new High Court Rules are a weighty document. From my observation of the email traffic over the last 5 years, I know that they have been well considered and deeply thought of. I was taught jurisprudence by Professor Mathieson, as he then was. Shortly afterwards at the Bar, I appeared in the Court of Appeal as junior counsel, and Professor Mathieson appeared on the other side. I revisited the rigour of his intellectual teaching ability in the way he appeared as respondent for the Crown in that case in the Court of Appeal, which involved an issue of defamation arising from a police summary of facts that wrongly named a third party. His advocacy then was indeed detailed to the highest degree. With Dr Mathieson’s oversight of these rules, one can assume that no stone has been left unturned, and I trust that these rules are as clear to follow as some of his jurisprudence lectures were.

In concluding, I must say these rules are long overdue. They will be welcome by the Bar. I do hope that our other tribunals—particularly the coroner’s court and the Family Court—can receive the same attention as to the rules that guide their processes. The rules of a court are the rules that determine that justice is in fact delivered.

Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) : It was a delight to hear Mr Finlayson keep us informed with his careful analysis and review of the Judicature (High Court Rules) Amendment Bill. As he spoke, I was reminded of the comments that Professor Jeremy Waldron recently made at the inaugural John Graham Lecture at the Maxim Institute. Dr Waldron is an American academic, although a New Zealander by birth, and he spoke about a number of aspects of our parliamentary system that he found lamentable. One of the things he spoke about—taken from the work of Sir Geoffrey Palmer—touched upon the fact that we are the fastest lawmakers in the West.

I reflect on that as I look at the Judicature (High Court Rules) Amendment Bill, because it is an illustration of it. This legislation came to the House for its first reading on 26 August, and just a few days later—11 September—we see it about to go through the further rites of the second reading, Committee stage, third reading, and Royal assent. For some legislation such speedy action is perfectly appropriate. I can think of many other illustrations that we have been treated to in the period of this Labour-led Government where legislation has languished for very substantial periods of time. But where there is a will—and we have seen it here—legislation can be progressed with expedition.

A few lawyers in Parliament have some knowledge of the rules of civil procedure. I think it is interesting that a number of procedural texts have given depth to these High Court Rules. The older court lawyers here would have been brought up with a text by a Queen’s Counsel called Sim. Sim’s Court Practice continues today, and is now edited by Justice Quilliam. There are a number of other publications. McGechan has a distinguished work on procedure, and Laws of New Zealand contains a significant amount of material on that same subject.

I want to dwell on several matters, starting with the primary objective in this legislation, which is set out in rule 1.2, “Objective—The objective of these rules is to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of any proceeding or interlocutory application.” I shall reflect for a moment on what it is about procedure, and on what the limitations of procedure might be as laid down by the judges in a number of cases. I shall refer to two. The first is a case very well known to Mr Finlayson: Food-Tech Ingredients Ltd v APV Bell-Bryant (New Zealand) Ltd in1989, and the comment made there.

Christopher Finlayson: I read it every night.

Dr RICHARD WORTH: Some of us have exciting dreams before we wake in the morning; this case might well be an illustration of that. What was said in that case was this: “Although experience demonstrates that when ‘things are done decently and in order’ better justice will result, slavish adherence to the letter rather than the spirit, effect, and totality of the rules is not a recipe for a just and equitable disposition of a matter.” In a second case, Schmidt v Bank of New Zealand Ltd, it was stated: “Procedural rules are the servants of Court proceedings to achieve just, speedy, and, at the least cost, expedition of cases. The construction of Court rules should always be approached with care, but with a readiness to apply them to meet the justice of the case which is manifest before a Court.” What is being said there, of course, is that a slavish adherence to the rules of procedure is not necessarily the best way to produce a just outcome.

I would make the further point, from a court lawyer’s perspective, that if we look at the armoury available to a court lawyer apart from the innate skill of that lawyer, we see that there are probably two key assets in that armoury. Those assets are a sound knowledge of the rules of evidence and a sound knowledge of the rules of procedure. Of course, those rules are buttressed by another aspect. That other aspect is the inherent jurisdiction of the court, and that inherent jurisdiction is actually flagged in rule 1.6, under the heading, “Cases not provided for”. We should reflect that alongside what purports to be a code is an ability to buttress the law by the inherent jurisdiction of the court, and there are still significant areas of the law that can be the subject of orders made by the court in its inherent jurisdiction.

Mr Finlayson in his comments referred to the fact that these rules do not deal well with the issue of discovery, and I made that point during the first reading debate on this bill. Discovery is one of those interlocutory proceedings that requires that the party against whom the order is made disclose the relevant documents in his possession, power, or control. This has become a highly time-consuming element in the interlocutory stages. In fact, discovery has now reached such a stage of sophistication that it may run for many months and produce a huge bulk of material. As others have said, the growth in email traffic has meant that discovery of itself may be one of the biggest tasks in the whole litigation process as it runs through from the time proceedings are filed until their ultimate resolution.

Perhaps the last things I would like to speak about are the important provisions in Part 9, which relates to evidence—in particular, the taking of evidence by affidavit. I had the good fortune, before I was the consul for Monaco, to be the consul for Colombia. Colombian consular work involved substantial interaction with the legal process. That was because a large number of Colombian visitors came to this country and got into significant trouble with the law. They either were bringing drugs into the country or were engaged in robberies and similar crimes to gather funds to purchase drugs in this jurisdiction. I became, in my own judgment, very much an expert in the taking of fingerprints. The taking of fingerprints is an essential part of the authentication of documents under Colombian law. That is why if one was to exhume bodies in Colombia, one would find large numbers of corpses with their arms severed at the wrist. The hands are removed, and for as long as viable prints can be taken from the fingers, they are used to authenticate documents in the name of the deceased person for the wrongful purpose of gaining access to benefits such as superannuation and armed services entitlements.

I simply say that in the context of the taking of evidence we must be always vigilant on the issue of authenticity of documentation, and we have seen that to some extent in the sad events in this House that have troubled the Rt Hon Winston Peters. I am glad to say that the High Court Rules in themselves provide, I believe, a sound code in connection with the taking of affidavit evidence and the use of that evidence in the court.

We see tonight the final passage of the Judicature (High Court Rules) Amendment Bill. Others have said that much more work is required, and I believe that, in the area of evidence, that is determinedly so. But I know that National supports this legislation. We would like to see its passage, its implementation, and its use by lawyers in the civil jurisdiction.

DAIL JONES (NZ First) : This is a very big, important, and excellent bill. By contrast, this speech is short and sweet. New Zealand First supports the bill.

Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) : Well, I guess that speech said a great deal about the way New Zealand First sees its future in this House, did it not? It will be very short—possibly only 1 more week. I am actually surprised that Mr Jones, in recognition of the fact that he may be here for only 1 more week, did not take the opportunity to give a somewhat longer speech. It may, after all, be one of the last speeches he makes in the House.

My colleagues Mr Finlayson and Dr Worth have indicated—and indeed I have to acknowledge the speech made by Mr Fairbrother, as well—that they are experienced advocates in the courts. They know how important this sort of legislation is.

One of the intriguing things about this Judicature (High Court Rules) Amendment Bill—and it is an extremely thick bill—is that it was referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee on 26 August 2008 for a report back by 9 September. Ironically, the committee states, in the commentary on the bill: “Given the short timeframe for consideration, we were not able to hear submissions on the bill.” It is huge, thick bill, but there were no submissions, at all. But, as the committee members quite properly pointed out, this work has been the subject of work over many, many years by relevant committees, primarily the Law Society, and also by the judges and the Bar council, and so forth.

One of the things that is perhaps not as well understood amongst the legal profession as it should be is the status of the rules. A lot of people think that the rules are something that are essentially created by the court itself, or through the process of the court, and that they have a subsidiary aspect about them. That is not the case. These rules are legislation—creatures of statute. The vast bulk of this bill is schedule 2, which is the new High Court Rules themselves. The bill is a complete and comprehensive rewrite of the rules. The bill is called the Judicature (High Court Rules) Amendment Bill, but that should not give people the impression that it is a simple amendment to the rules. This is a new set of rules, with some of the issues set out by my colleagues.

One of the extraordinary features of sitting today, and I must take the opportunity to say this, is that anyone would think this Government believes it is a 4-year Government. The reason I say that is that when I look at the business of the House—and this is an issue of procedure that I need to speak about—we have some 52 items on the Order Paper. There are actually 66, including notices of motion. Huge numbers of these bills have been set down for first reading. I wonder whether the Government intends all of them to have a first reading, because I am aware there are other bills yet to be introduced that would also be put down for first reading. But we have only 1 week of sitting time in which to undertake that exercise.

Why on earth, I ask myself, would a Government with 1 sitting week to go have an Order Paper with 56 items of business, many of which were introduced this week? Why would it do that? The Government has had 9 years. It has had plenty of time to organise a logical and natural flow of business. We would think the peak period of Government business would be in the second and third years—the second year in particular.

One of the remarkable things we noticed late last year and early this year was how incredibly thin the Order Paper was. It got down to about 21 items of business. I find it frankly almost an abuse of procedure for a Government to think, after 9 years, that it can load the House with 56 items of business, pretending that the House will be sitting for weeks and weeks, or for months and months, and that it will send all of these bills off to select committees as if there was no election coming at all. Frankly, that shows a Government that is arrogant, a Government that is tired, and a Government that thinks it can fool people by looking busy when, in fact, we are about to terminate.

I wanted to specifically raise that point with the House because I think the public needs to know the way this Government operates, and the way it essentially abuses the democratic procedure. There is a lack of appreciation that the people have a say, and that they will have a say in just 8 or 9 weeks’ time. Surely we would expect a Parliament to respect that judgment and not pretend that this is a 4-year Parliament.

I congratulate—well, it is less the Parliament in this instance, because although this is said to be a Government bill, it originated directly from the legal profession and the judiciary, and in a sense we are acting as a conduit. Nowhere is that more demonstrated than by the fact that we have a bill of 766 pages. The bill itself, which introduces the schedule, is less than half a dozen pages long—it is 5 pages, in fact—but it does one significant thing in relation to the role and functions of the Chief High Court Judge. It is a very important function.

At one stage, the Chief Justice of New Zealand used to be in the High Court, and then we had a Court of Appeal presided over by a president, and our top court was the Privy Council. With the establishment of the Supreme Court, it was appropriate and necessary that the Chief Justice be in that court. It is proper that our highest judge be represented in our highest court. It always was a rather odd circumstance that our Chief Justice was in a lower court, and that the decisions of the Chief Justice could be appealed and overruled by the Court of Appeal. One would have to say that it was somewhat idiosyncratic. Once we had a Supreme Court, there had to be an administrative judge within the High Court itself to manage the organisation of the judges, such as the planning of cases, the establishment of rules, and so forth. So the judges—and it is the judges, in this instance—have added some additional powers for the Chief High Court Judge in the exercise and management of that court, to make it rather more sensible.

National supports this legislation. The observation that it has taken 9 long years to get it here should, I guess, properly be made. But more seriously, I find there is a pattern of what I see as essentially an abuse of approach by the Government. Loading this Parliament, right at its very terminating point, with 56 bills is, frankly, an example of Government arrogance. I say to those members, some of whom I suspect will not be returning to this Parliament, that the reason they will not be returning is this example of arrogance and pretence that the people do not count. Let me say to those members that the people do count, and they will have their say in 8 weeks’ time.

TIM BARNETT (Labour—Christchurch Central) : I listened intently to the previous speaker, in the hope that with the extension of his time to 10 minutes we might hear something interesting at the end, and, sure enough, I was waiting for this Government to be attacked on the basis that we are a busy Government. We have 56 items of legislation, all of which have gone through a planning process, all of which have been negotiated through the MMP system, and all of which are sitting on the Order Paper of this Parliament. I think it must be many years since a Government, with 9 proud years behind it, has had a good 6 months of House business sitting there on the Order Paper, ready to go. So if I could respond initially to that, I think that having 56 bills on the Order Paper, far from being a sign of Government arrogance, is actually a sign of Government confidence, of Government efficiency, and of a Government that understands how the MMP system works.

We are here this evening to talk about the Judicature (High Court Rules) Amendment Bill. This is a good example, in spite of the factional nature of the last speech, of MMP in action, because this matter has taken what one could reasonably call a casual and an elongated route through to our Parliament, starting with the Rules Committee beginning to redraft the High Court Rules back in 2004. Now here we are, four-and-a-bit years later, at the end of that process. The legislation is massive; it is detailed. In that sense, in my head it is very similar to the process we recently went through on the Income Tax Act, which produced equally voluminous legislation and was a good example of parties in this Parliament working together to good advantage. Next on our Order Paper is the Walking Access Bill, which again, in a shorter period, has produced a similar level of agreement.

I commend the bill to the House.

• Bill read a second time and a third time.

ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) : I understand that this debate is a continuation of the debate on Part 1 that I was not here for, so I do beg the indulgence of the Committee if I canvass some matters that have already been presented in debate. Part 1 sets out the purpose of the bill, which is followed by some matters of interpretation that are quite significant. Essentially, though, I want to focus my comments on the purpose of this legislation.

It is probably appropriate to discuss some of the history behind the establishment of this bill. I am not sure how far back we want to go but we can go back to about 1839, when the first instruction came from Queen Victoria. That actually pre-dated the Treaty of Waitangi. The instruction was to embrace a chain, 22 yards, along every waterway in New Zealand. At that point the instruction was rejected. Queen Victoria again gave the instruction, sometime early in the 1840s—I think it was about 1843—which became part of the fabric of New Zealand. The instruction was that New Zealanders should have rights of access along waterways. That was the beginning of it.

This bill is a continuation of several pieces of legislation and of instructions that have occurred both in local government and in the Government itself. It was John MacKenzie, whose statue is on top of a hill near Palmerston, who, under the Ballance Government in 1891, moved this whole area significantly forward again. Not only did he break up the large squattocracies of the South Island and institute what became the symbol of New Zealand farming—the family farm—but he again attempted to extend the walking access of New Zealanders. As well, overlaying a great part of New Zealand is a series of paper roads. There are various calculations as to how much of those exist in New Zealand. The smallest figure I have come across is about 56,000 kilometres, but the figure rises to about 76,000 kilometres. The amount is significant. So that is the history of what we have had in New Zealand.

The reason we have this history, of course, is that New Zealand has a resource in terms of its rivers, its mountains, its scenic vistas, and its conservation land. All of these are part of the birthright of New Zealanders to enjoy, and no one shall own access to them. However, there are some issues of difficulty. In some places we have conservation land, marginal strips, the Queen’s chain, or whatever, for which there is no point of access except by crossing private land. So this bill sets out some steps involving a negotiation process by which access can be gained across private land.

The bill also sets up a Walking Access Commission, which will have the responsibility for this negotiation. It will have the responsibility for compiling a database of what actually does exist in terms of private land, and of establishing a code of conduct. It is important that where we have negotiated access, the public adheres to a code of conduct that is in keeping with the land use in the area. That will be the role of the Walking Access Commission. The commission, having been set up by this bill and coming into existence after the bill has been passed, will look after and conduct the affairs of those people who are seeking to walk across private land in New Zealand. I need to just make these points; this has been a bit of a tortuous process.

Initially, Jim Sutton, Minister for Rural Affairs, back in about 2003, I think, set up a ministerial committee to look at the issue of walking access. I think that perhaps one of the biggest mistakes in the stellar career of the Hon Jim Sutton was to say: “I want you to have a look at the wander-at-will provision.”, because this immediately raised the hackles of every single private landowner in New Zealand. It is important to note that while on one hand we talk in this bill about what the public resource is, and how important it is that New Zealanders have access to it as their birthright, we also have enshrined in the fabric of New Zealanders, property rights. So just to lay down a wander-at-will provision certainly would be contrary to the expectation of every property holder in New Zealand, and this suggestion, in terms of the public, has raised considerable ire. There was the yellow ribbon—

Hon Member: Orange ribbon.

ERIC ROY: Oh, orange ribbon, was it? Yes, it was. Well, anyway, there was the ribbon parade where all the landowners got quite upset about the proposal that walking access would be freely available under the wander-at-will provision.

I also need to say that I was actually on that first ministerial panel, so I have some understanding of that process. In the just over 400 submissions that the walking access reference group received, only 1½ of them wanted that wander-at-will provision: there was a vague reference in one submission, and another clearly came out and said it. So there is no great desire in the New Zealand public to have that provision, but there is clearly a desire to have a body like the Walking Access Commission sit down and do the negotiation, in a way that allows access in and around New Zealand.

This bill is primarily about walking access, but there are also some other issues in the purpose clause for which the Walking Access Commission will have a responsibility to negotiate. In some instances it is not only about just walking; walking is a means to achieve other interests that New Zealanders have, whether they be hunting, fishing—

John Carter: Four-wheel driving—

ERIC ROY: —well, yes—and it is not only about just shooting with firearms. Also mentioned here are other means of propulsion, so that people who are archers can be catered for, for example, and the Walking Access Commission will be the body that does the negotiating for that.

There were a huge number of submissions, and probably of most concern to a lot of the people who submitted was the fact that they could see that this bill would impinge upon other rights of access. One part in the bill suggested, for example, that the paper roads would be a point where walkways could be put in, and the assumption was that this would impact upon the rights of four-wheel drivers to be able to use the area as it was originally.

John Carter: And it would.

ERIC ROY: Well, I tell Mr Carter that I am not sure whether it would or would not. But the select committee, in its discussions, said: “Well, look, there is an access guaranteed along a paper road; there is no need to designate a walkway on a paper road.” So I just want to assure those four-wheel drivers who are out there in drive-time right now—and I still, almost every day, get emails from people concerned about what this bill might mean to them—that their rights are in no way impacted by the Walking Access Bill.

Furthermore, under the purpose clause, clause 3(c)(ii) states that the Walking Access Commission can negotiate for “motor vehicles”, as well. So there is a whole raft of things that this panel will do. Primarily, this legislation, as set out in the purpose clause, is about providing access across private land to conservation land, marginal strips, or whatever. Wherever there is a public resource the bill is about negotiating on that, and it is about a code of conduct, and the compilation of the database. So I think this bill is an important step forward.

I need to say, also, that this legislation will not resolve every single issue that exists out there, but I believe that it is another step forward. It is a logical step forward, and it is a very reasoned step forward. National is happy to support the bill during the Committee stage.

COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) : It is a pleasure to follow my learned colleague Eric Roy, who very clearly articulated the basis of National’s support for the Walking Access Bill. In dealing with Part 1, I just make the comment that I can remember being at Meat and Wool New Zealand’s office when I heard that John Acland was asked by Jim Sutton to conduct a process that would take walking access within New Zealand one step further forward. I can remember talking to the chief executive officer, Mr Taylor, and we both agreed then that there would not be an easy way to go forward. It is interesting that we have now had a pretty torrid sort of a journey, but we have got to this Committee stage, where we are looking at Part 1 of the bill, which includes the purpose and interpretation clauses.

I will dwell for a moment on the code of responsible conduct, because there is still the need for the Walking Access Commission, when it is set up, to develop a code of conduct. That is effectively what clause 4, the interpretation clause, deals primarily with. It takes us right through a whole range of things and gives us the meaning of what is referred to by way of interpretation under the bill. It talks about the administering authority, it talks about the Crown, and then it talks about the code of responsible conduct. That code is very important, because although we hear very often in New Zealand about people’s rights, we do not often hear enough about people’s responsibilities. There is no doubt about the fact that this code of responsible conduct will talk about those responsibilities. At the end of the day it is best to treat these things with respect and as a privilege, because that denotes a responsible standard of behaviour.

I will concentrate for a moment on the minority report from the Green Party. I believe that that report represents the remnants of what caused so much grief regarding the previous bills around the right to roam that were introduced into this House. The Green Party talks about enshrining the right of public access to land, and it talks in such a way as to suggest that this bill does not give the Walking Access Commission sufficient teeth. That enshrining in the law of a right of access is something that has to be balanced against other people’s rights, and that is why it is very important that we talk in terms of privilege and responsibility. We look forward to those concepts being developed within the code of responsible conduct, the development of which will be one of the fundamental responsibilities of the commission.

Another aspect of the interpretation clause that has come about through the progress of this bill through its second reading concerns firearms. Once upon a time it would have been inconceivable that we would have a negotiated outcome around access and the use of firearms. However, we see that clause 4 talks about the use of firearms. It also defines an honorary enforcement officer as being “an honorary enforcement officer appointed under section 48 and warranted under section 49;”. Those officers will have responsibility for ensuring that the code of conduct is adhered to, and if there are any issues, those people are the ones with whom someone can make first contact in order to sort the issues out.

There is a fair amount of information in Part 1. Comments about the landowner would have come up, but during the second reading and in the select committee process that term was changed to “landholder”. That seems to be quite sensible to me, because, largely speaking, there is a whole range of tenure of land. One can have leasehold land, and one can have freehold land. Basically, the term refers to the person who occupies the land. In this case it is very appropriate that we refer to “landholder”, because not all land is freehold. From that point of view we can move forward and actually keep the interpretation of the bill quite clear.

The interpretation clause refers to the Minister who is ultimately to be in control and accountable under the legislation. That Minister will be the Minister for Rural Affairs, and that raises a point that concerned many of us on this side of the Chamber originally. This bill went to the Local Government and Environment Committee. It is interesting to see that the advice that was given to the select committee came from the Department of Conservation and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. That still leaves me wondering why the bill was not originally sent to the Primary Production Committee.

Of significance too are the efforts to accommodate as many people as possible in having access to the outdoors. Of course, the interpretation clause refers to personal mobility devices. That pertains explicitly to people with disabilities, and to the fact that they should have the opportunity to be able to access walkways, whether on unformed roads or on formed roads.

There is a lot of work to be done by the commission, and that will be quite an exercise, because the commission has to look after aspects of structure and maintenance. It has to be able to manage the walkways in a constructive way over private land and over public land, and it has to constantly be aware that there is a high level of accountability back to the Occupational Safety and Health Service, and to other such organisations. The maintenance of tracks will need to be kept up. When we stop and think about the structures involved, we realise that we are talking about bridges, fences, gates, shelters, stiles, boundary markers, hoarding markers, and notices. That being the case, there will be a restraint on the commission, in the sense that it will not want walkways to fall into disrepair.

The maintenance issue was highlighted quite early on when the bill went to the select committee. The comment was made that, effectively, the Department of Conservation, because of its huge landholding, was actually starting to lose its focus on, as well as its funding for, the maintenance of tracks appropriately. When we look at Part 1, we see that the responsibility for access to public land will be transferred across to the Walking Access Commission. On that basis we will be looking forward to a much better performance. We will be looking forward to having much better public access to public land held by the Department of Conservation, and we will be looking forward to seeing a higher standard of maintenance, signposting, and mapping of walkways.

When we look at Part 1 we see that things are very positive. It is important that we do not lose sight of the purpose of this bill and of the fact that we are pleased to be able to support it. It has been a long journey. The interpretation of aspects within the bill relating to the landholder and the responsibilities and privileges of access is borne out in clause 16, “Contents of code”. We look forward to seeing that code come to fruition. It will be advertised publicly and will be out for consultation. No doubt that, in itself, will bring about the expression of a certain level of ire, and there will be a lot more input made into the code. It is a pleasure to speak in support of this bill. Thank you very much, Mr Chairperson.

JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) : I will make two points in this debate. I say to members I may not necessarily take 5 minutes to make them, either, just so my colleagues are aware. The first thing is that it is interesting that Government members cannot be bothered making a contribution—none at all—on the Walking Access Bill, which they have touted around the place for months and months.

Eric Roy: This would have been a messy bill without us.

JOHN CARTER: Unquestionably; and, indeed, I notice even the Green members have not bothered to take a call, yet it was they who wanted the right to roam in the first place, supported by the Labour Party.

I noticed earlier on, in the debate on the Waste Minimisation Bill, that the Minister for the Environment stood up, said “I move the bill.”, and sat down again. That is disgraceful. I would have thought that Government members would want to show at least a little bit of interest. It just reflects where they are—dead in the water. That is actually what that is about. They are dead on the walking track, dead on the purpose of this bill, or dead on whatever part we are speaking about. It just shows their attitude now to the governance of this country.

Russell Fairbrother: What about the bill?

JOHN CARTER: Well, a member over there is happy to interject, but it would be nice if he took a call, instead of asking those inane questions that he asks during question time, which give everybody so much pleasure, including himself. Let me talk about the bill for a minute or two.

Russell Fairbrother: Oh, good idea.

JOHN CARTER: If the member listens, he might even learn something. One of the things that came out in this debate that goes right to the purpose of this bill is that initially the intent of it was to guarantee everyone’s right to roam. We have such a beautiful country that people do want to go and access all sorts of places—and so they should, too. But the interesting thing is that the debate came down to the compulsion part of it. Landowners said: “Hang on a minute. We don’t want you thinking you can just walk right across our properties any time, any style, whatever you like, however many people, whatever it is.”

The fact is that most landowners—and I am now talking about rural landowners—are fair-minded people. Part of that is reflected in the way they vote. Most of them are National supporters, and, of course, National supporters are all good, fair-minded people.

Hon Member: Common sense.

JOHN CARTER: It is just a bit of common sense, unlike a lot of the socialist people.

The fact is that, with a lot of this stuff, if people go and talk to a farmer or a landowner, and say to that farmer or landowner that they would like to have access, please, to get to a lake or whatever it may be, most of them are pretty reasonable. Most of them will say: “Well, just be aware that there is an issue here. We’ve got some stock in that paddock.”—or whatever it may be—“Would you mind making sure you shut the gates, etc.” That is fair enough. People should be as responsible as that. Most farmers will allow people access across their properties, but the point is that there are the odd one or two people who, for whatever reason—maybe they have had difficulties in the past—need to be given some encouragement to do so. This bill moves that situation forward in that it allows the opportunity for people to sit down and negotiate, and that is a good thing.

This has turned out to be a good, positive bill and, as we move forward and this bill becomes law in our country, and as people start talking and negotiating, two things will happen. First, we will make good progress, and disagreements will be sorted out amicably. I think we will find that very rarely do we have to enforce the Public Works Act to take the land if that is what is required because some conclusion cannot be reached.

The second thing that will happen is that people will become more educated, too. There will be debates in the community about this whole thing; it will get publicity, and that means the public will be better informed about the purpose of the bill and the reason a farmer may object to something. The public will become more learned, and that in itself will be a good thing because what is asked for in this whole issue is that the people who might want to have access be responsible as they cross privately owned land.

So I think some very good results will come about because of the way the Walking Access Bill has been finally drafted, and by the way it will be implemented by this Parliament. It is certainly far better legislation than it was. It will certainly serve a far better purpose than it would have when it was first put down—because, of course, of the input from the National Party. Without the National Party input, the legislation certainly would not have ended up anything like this bill—it would have been a negative bill instead of the positive bill that it has ended up as.

RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) : The Walking Access Bill does not justify such a pedestrian speech from the last speaker, John Carter. He limped through the history of this thing. As I read the bill—I was looking for something to do while he was speaking—it struck me that the Court of Appeal that handed down the decision for Ngāti Apa in 2003 has a lot to answer for as the genesis of this bill. When the Court of Appeal determined that the foreshore and seabed may no longer be public property it took away our assumption of rights to use what we commonly understand to be public spaces. At that time we thought that all of us could walk along the area between high tide and low tide on the beach. Many of us thought it was what is known as the Queen’s Chain. We all had an uncertain understanding of its legal status, but we were all dead sure in our heart of hearts that this was New Zealand, and we could use the beaches as long as we respected the environment.

Well, the Ngāti Apa decision brought us into the 21st century—it woke us up to indigenous rights. A collateral of that was that people started to ask what the rights are for the public over areas of land, what the riparian rights are along private land; and whether one can walk up the riverbed of a private property, go fishing wherever one wants, put up one’s tent alongside a river, and camp there as long as one respects the environment. No longer could we assume that one could climb over a strainer post to cross a fence to go on to a piece of land to get to the river. It was a reminder that we had to ask.

Then we saw instances, predating the Ngāti Apa case, along the east coast of the Wairarapa where a landowner—who lived in Carterton, of all places, and made leather jackets—decided that public access along the road to the beach over his property should not be widely open, because four-wheel drive vehicles were abusing that right. So he had the temerity to erect a gate, which was locked. That brought a howl of protest. That demonstrates that as we have become more mobile in this country and our enjoyment of the open spaces is no longer restricted to moderate, passive use—people engage in more intrusive forms such as four-wheel drive vehicles, and people understand their rights such as indigenous rights and their property rights—it has become necessary to have a clearer definition of just where the public may go, what our public spaces are, and what our private spaces are.

I do not think it is a bad thing that this debate was highlighted by Ngāti Apa, because Ngāti Apa brought us to the indigenous rights law, the aboriginal law that has been developing around the world, and it put it fair and square on New Zealand’s plate. I think the consequences of that are still being digested, and it is seen frequently in the debate about the issue of tino rangatiratanga. I think that debate has not yet been fully explored in this country. So the Walking Access Bill, as I see it, is part of the unintended consequences of earlier, ground-breaking—if I can use the term without it being a pun—legislation, which was designed to settle differences over what had proved to be a very emotional issue causing much reaction and overreaction from many people and, some say, from certain Government sources.

So the Walking Access Bill is one that I think most members of the Committee clearly welcome, and its objectives are set out in the purpose clause, clause 3. I remind members of the public who may be listening that that purpose is “to provide the New Zealand public with free, certain, enduring, and practical walking access to the outdoors”.

We in New Zealand grow up believing we are an outdoor country. We in New Zealand grow up believing we have the right to go fishing, and the right to go hunting. I think that is an inherent right that is part of the New Zealand character. It has to be carried forward so that those who have the privilege of private property can be informed when those rights are going to intersect, and so that there is a degree of negotiation and a degree of clarity.

• Progress reported.

• Report adopted.