Madam SPEAKER: I hereby inform the House that I have received advice from the Palmerston North City Council, the promoter of the Palmerston North Reserves Empowering Amendment Bill, that it is withdrawing the bill, pursuant to Standing Order 274. The bill is consequently discharged from further consideration by this House.

LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) : I move, That the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill be now read a second time. I am delighted to move this local bill on behalf of the promoting councils, the Waitakere City Council, the Auckland Regional Council, and the Rodney District Council. I warmly thank those councils for the privilege they have given me of taking charge of this bill in this House, which is something I hold very dear.

I introduced this bill to the House in 2005. Its purpose was to recognise the national significance of the Waitakere Ranges and foothills and to promote the protection of their heritage features. I thank the Local Government and Environment Committee, which carefully examined the bill and recommended that it be passed with amendments. I support that recommendation. The amendments have significantly refined and improved the provisions of the bill. These changes result from the thorough consideration of over 200 submissions heard by the committee, which was ably chaired by Steve Chadwick.

I pay tribute to Steve and to the members of the select committee for their work on the bill, and especially to those members who put politics aside and worked through the issues to ensure that the bill provides the best protection possible for the Waitakere Ranges. I also want to acknowledge the advisers and staff from the councils, Parliament, the Ministry for the Environment, Local Government New Zealand, the Department of Conservation, legal advisers, and select committee staff. Their contribution has been invaluable.

The Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area is a nationally significant area of ecological, historical, and cultural importance, immediately adjoining the expanding international city that metropolitan Auckland has become. The intensity of urbanisation pressures on public and private land here is enormous, and unique in New Zealand. The select committee accepted the need for further protection for this beautiful landscape from the adverse effects of urban growth and development.

The bill seeks to contain urban Auckland, so that it becomes more compact, efficient, and sustainable, and seeks to protect the natural and cultural values of the ranges and the foothills. But this is not blind protection at all costs. The bill does not lock up the area and throw away the key. The heritage area will continue to be a lived-in, worked-in, and played-in place, a place with its own special communities and stunning, diverse landscapes, and a place separate from, but highly accessible to, urban Auckland and for all who visit this wonderful land.

As the local member, I am proud that the select committee has woven together the needs and interests of the social and economic well-being of the local communities with the wider national significance of the area and the need for protection. The heart of the heritage area is the Waitakere Ranges Regional Park. These high, rugged, deeply dissected hills were originally acquired and set aside as a park, the Auckland Centennial Memorial Park, to commemorate the first century of development. The bill restates the management objectives for this now expanded parkland, to ensure the protection, in perpetuity, of the land and the values of the parkland. But outside the parkland the heritage area includes 10,000 hectares of private land, home to some 22,000 people who are living on farmland, nestled in the bush, and in coastal villages around our wild west coast beaches.

The bill is innovative in its protection not just of the natural character but of the distinctive bush-dominated urban areas and the farming and rural character of the foothills to the east and north of the ranges. The bill introduces local area plans that provide for the specific well-being of local communities within the heritage area. Local communities and councils will be able to establish a vision for the communities’ well-being and determine how their area should be managed. In one sense this is common old-fashioned planning, but it is also an innovative location-specific means of working to assure long-term goals and a means of dealing with the difficult planning issue of cumulative effects.

The bill operates within a framework of existing legislation, particularly the Resource Management Act and the Local Government Act 2002. The select committee has taken care to ensure that the provisions of the bill do not conflict with the Resource Management Act, by giving clarity and certainty and recognising the superior position of that Act.

Some members of the National Party have mischievously promoted the notion out there in the community that this bill will add costly layers and endless restrictions to the district plan. That is not the case and it never was the intent. However, the select committee has ensured there will be no such confusion. A new clause ensures that the bill is interpreted and implemented within the regime of the Resource Management Act. The bill will, in fact, ease some development and consenting processes, reduce costs, and add certainty of requirements and acceptable development. It may also reduce litigation by creating a more certain planning framework.

The National Party has created a sense of fear in some quarters and cynically traded on those fears. In reality, those fears are groundless. The bill does not erode private property rights and it does not take private land; rather, it enhances the rights of the vast majority of residents who do not want to see ad hoc development—development that was so appropriately described by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment as “death by a thousand cuts”.

I am a proud resident within the boundaries of the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area, which makes the bill so special to me. So many have campaigned for so long—over decades, in fact. I acknowledge the enormous contribution of Ngāti Whātua, Te Kawerau-a-Maki, the Rt Hon Jonathan Hunt, the Waitakere Ranges Protection Society, Forest and Bird, and so many community groups and landowners. They love this land, they have contributed much to its history, and they want to protect it for generations to come.

I commend the three councils’ strong leadership, Waitakere mayor Bob Harvey, Auckland Regional Council chair Mike Lee and councillors Paul Walbran and Sandra Coney, Rodney District mayor John Law, and all the Rodney District Council and Waitakere City Council councillors and community board members who supported this bill, and also so many of the staff who did sterling work on this bill. I also want to recognise my very good friends and colleagues David Cunliffe, Chris Carter, Dover Samuels, and Darien Fenton. They, like me, are enthusiastic advocates for this bill. This has been a long journey and today I celebrate what is, for so many, the realisation of a dream. It has been an honour to be part of this journey, and it gives me great pleasure to commend the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill to the House. Thank you.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) : A key election issue in 12 months’ time is going to be the Resource Management Act. There is a deep feeling in the electorate that that well-intended Act is in need of reform—reform not to change the balance of the Act between the environment and development, but to simplify and streamline the Act. What is so flawed about this bill is that it is going to add to the complexity, it is going to add to the uncertainty, and it is going to add to the bureaucracy of the Resource Management Act. It is so significant that the Ministry for the Environment opposed this bill. It said that this bill is bad law, that it is against the intent of the Resource Management Act, and that this bill only adds—

Lynne Pillay: They did not!

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member sponsoring the bill says that that was not true. I say, as a member of the Local Government and Environment Committee, and as my colleague John Carter will confirm, the Ministry for the Environment made very plain that it does not support this bill. This bill should be called the “Lynne Pillay (Save Her Bacon) Election Bill”.

Steve Chadwick: How populist is that!

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, it is! I have to tell Steve Chadwick this bill is bad law. It is more about politics than it is about doing the right thing for the environment, and that is exactly why members on this side of the House will oppose it.

Members will have heard often that we need to get greater clarity into our environmental laws. I would like to ask the House how a law that states: “this land is a fish.”, is going to have a better result. What we are proposing in Lynne Pillay’s bill is to put into the law of the land the statement that “this land is a fish.” I am respectful—

Lynne Pillay: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The bill is not my bill; it is a bill from the local authorities in Waitakere and the Auckland region.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): That is not a point of order; it is a debating point.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We listened respectfully to Lynne Pillay’s contribution, but where members’ speeches are unnecessarily interrupted, there is a practice of the member with the call being able to go back to the beginning of his or her speech, and I suggest that that should be applied, because that was a complete non - point of order.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I am the sole judge of that.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: This bills states—and puts into law—the words: “this land is a fish.” I cannot believe that there are members of this House who think that that will somehow provide greater clarity for the administrators of the Resource Management Act in making good decisions about how we manage the environment. I am respectful of people’s religions, and I, in many environments, am happy to have such statements made—on the marae and in other places—but it has no place in the law; it is garbage, as is this bill.

A further point with the Resource Management Act is the huge complexity of plans that we have within that Act. I remind members that for the Waitakere Ranges we have to have a district plan, we have to have a regional plan, we have to have national coastal policy statements, and we even have to have a long-term community plan. What this bill attempts to do is to introduce a new layer of planning into the Resource Management Act. We are now going to have to have local area plans as well. So for an area included in this legislation we are now going to have to have local area plans, a district plan, and a regional plan, as well as the national policy statements and one specifically for the coast.

I have to ask members opposite: “Is not that a nonsense?”. This is a little country of 4 million people, and we now have to have four tiers of planning documents to look after the environment. Members on this side of the House say we do not need more plans, we do not need more tiers, we do not need more bureaucracy; we need better environmental outcomes.

Then we come to some of the issues that have been raised by the member. There is in law, right now, the capacity for the Waitakere City Council to be able to rewrite its district plan. National is of the view that, at the moment, the time it takes on average to change a plan under the Resource Management Act is 9 years. That is a nonsense. For it to take 9 years for those people who are standing for election in Waitakere and other parts of New Zealand to be able to implement their policy as to what they think is the right protection for the environment is a nonsense, and this bill will make it worse.

I say to members opposite that there are, rightly, problems with the Resource Management Act about dealing with cumulative effects. But why are we going to fix them only in the Waitakere Ranges? What about in Queenstown? What about in Banks Peninsula? What about in Motueka? What about in Waipukurau? Why are cumulative effects to be taken into account only in the area of the Waitakere Ranges, and not in any other part of the country? The real answer is that the member and the councils do not have the capacity to fix the whole Resource Management Act, so they are going about it in a piecemeal way.

Then let us look at the member’s management of this bill. This bill was reported back by the Local Government and Environment Committee on 24 May. Why is it, I ask the sponsor, that it has not come up on any of the 6 previous members’ days?

Lynne Pillay: Because we’re busy.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: They say they are busy! I will tell members why. It is because the member has not had the support of the House on those occasions, so she has manipulated the parliamentary process to try to save those members from an embarrassing defeat. What National says about this bill is that it says everything about the culture of bureaucracy, the culture of more laws, the culture of more plans, and the culture of more uncertainty that is at the heart of the problems we have with our environment.

I want the next speaker opposite to somehow explain how having another tier of plans will help. I commend Paula Bennett, who I think is on the money. She has said: “Look, we members on this side of the House think the Waitakere Ranges are a special place in Auckland and in New Zealand.” We also note that there is not a single national park north of Taupō. I am attracted to the idea that the Waitakere Ranges should be a national park, as Paula Bennett has proposed. Does that need a law? No, it simply requires an application by the Minister of Conservation to the New Zealand Conservation Authority.

I ask members opposite why, if they really care about the Waitakere Ranges, they have not lodged an application with the New Zealand Conservation Authority for that area to become a national park. That would make some sense and it would provide for a special protection for this particular area.

What concerns me deeply about this bill is that submission after submission, and advice from official after official, said we cannot say with any level of definitiveness what this bill will actually do. It is so full of waffle, so full of expectations and long words. We can ask basic questions, like: “Am I going to be able to convert my land to a vineyard? Am I going to be able to include a new wine-processing facility? Am I going to be able to build a garage on my property? Am I going to be able to put a granny flat on my property?”. The advice from the officials is that they do not know. Members on this side of the House say they have had enough of sloppy, woolly law that is designed for politics, rather than for getting good environmental outcomes.

I challenge the member opposite to give us a bill that will improve the environment, and we will be happy to talk. Give us a bill that will improve the certainty of the Resource Management Act, and we will be there to talk. But we do not want woolly laws that talk about the land being a fish, and all sorts of other nonsense. This is woolly, foolish law. It is no wonder that our own Ministry for the Environment advised against it proceeding. This bill has more to do with politics than with good environmental law.

National says that the right way forward for the Waitakere Ranges is a national park, as proposed by Paula Bennett, and we should reject this bill. Steve Chadwick and the smarter members on the select committee know that it is political hogwash, know that it is all about politics, and know that those who really care about the environment are interested in good, concise, robust law and not this silly, woolly-washy stuff that will only make worse the problems we currently have with the Resource Management Act.

STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) : I am excited to take a call on the second reading of the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill. Too right, it is all about politics. Let us just examine the politics behind this bill. This bill is a local bill. This bill has been put up by three territorial local authorities and one regional council, and it says everything about the two major parties in this House. On this side of the House is a party that supports local decision-making. This bill has been developed by these local authorities over the last 30 years, and not once did any of those three territorial local authorities and the regional council ask for a national park—but of course the member opposite who lives in Titirangi and is a list MP, Paula Bennett, is a new member. I defer to my colleague Lynne Pillay who has worked alongside these authorities, listened to them, listened to iwi, and found a resolution that matches and gets around both the Resource Management Act and the wishes of these authorities.

This is interesting politics. This is exactly how we want to see this huge territorial area of Auckland working. We all know that, in this House. We want to see local authorities working collegially, with the support of regional councils. I say: “Bring on more types of legislation like this. Well done, Waitakere.” This legislation is progressive, it is really good thinking, and it is so positive to see authorities that work together off the rank. I congratulate those authorities today on this work.

The bill has certainly had a long gestation; it was under the original guardianship of the Rt Hon Jonathan Hunt, who told us 30 years ago that this is what people in that region wanted when they saw the incremental creep of development and expansion from Auckland as the metropolitan city. They chose to live in the Waitakere Ranges. They chose to live out there for a lifestyle and for a love of the ecology and the environment. [Interruption] He is now a great MP, but not 30 years ago—it was Jonathan Hunt. He will be really thrilled to know that collectively today we are going to protect his beloved Waitakere Ranges for whenever he returns home. I am sure he will stroll around them with great joy in his heart.

I also acknowledge the passion of my “westie” colleagues, Lynne Pillay, David Cunliffe, Chris Carter, and Darien Fenton, who cajoled, lobbied, amended, and determined progress on the bill. I say to the members opposite that, yes, we needed to get support to get this bill through and we were determined to wait until we did the groundwork with other parties, as is the role of a good MMP Government, to get the numbers to get such lofty legislation through to this stage today. I say to Lynne Pillay that that is no mean feat, and I take my hat off to her as a colleague and fellow electorate MP.

Let us just look at what Paula Bennett said about the bill. She was opposed to it. She is a new member and has no idea about the complexities of district planning or about regional council responsibilities with the Resource Management Act. She said: “Let’s just have a national park.” Well, I do not think that member opposite ever wrote to the Minister of Conservation saying: “Let’s make Titirangi and Waitakere a national park.”

Paula Bennett: That’s not true. I have tabled the letter.

STEVE CHADWICK: If the member did, I say good on her. But this was our approach—supporting those councils. So there was a member going against the local authorities in the very region in which she lived, and who had disclosed the idea of a national park.

The Local Government and Environment Committee worked really well on this bill—and we had a challenge, as my colleague Nick Smith says. It was complex for us. It was certainly very complex trying to work through the overlapping, and making sure that we were not putting this bill above the precedents and order of the Resource Management Act. But when the select committee went out to Waitakere, in Auckland, we saw Opposition vehemence. Those who came told us about public meetings where the community was whipped up into a state of anxiety and fear by Opposition members with preconceived notions that people’s very lifestyles would be degraded by this bill. I found that really sad, and it is not the way responsible members of the House should act. They should be showing leadership to find solutions for legislation that is before a select committee, not sustaining bad feelings out in the community.

I especially want to acknowledge the work of the Hon Marian Hobbs, the previous Minister for the Environment, who shared some of Nick Smith’s concerns. She also had an in-depth knowledge of the Resource Management Act and how it applied to the very lofty, but cross-boundary, approach that these local authorities were undertaking. Her contribution was enormously helpful when the select committee heard 200 submissions and considered advice from officials.

The members of the select committee always understood that this area is of great significance. We heard about the significance of its cultural value and environmental value to the people of this region. We saw for ourselves the growing pressures of urbanisation on this very, very fragile ecological area, which has a very high rainfall. People have only to go there to see that for themselves. I believe we got the balance right in managing urban growth and development, with the sustainable protection of the natural and cultural value of the Waitakere Ranges. The ranges are very, very special; so are the foothills—and the ranges and foothills had to be taken as one. This area is the playground of Auckland people, and this bill will strengthen their playground.

We truly considered the social and economic aspects as well as the environmental aspects, and that is what we were expected to do under the provisions of the Local Government Act 2002. I think this legislation is quite iconic, because it encapsulates all the aspects of that Act. We took considerable advice to match the provisions of this bill with the provisions of both the Resource Management Act and the Local Government Act—especially in new section 10AA, inserted by clause 9, where we attempted to clarify, and give certainty to, this relationship.

Opposition members did a very good job in building up fears and anxieties in that community. They said the bill would add costs and endless restrictions, and cause delays in granting consents. But that is not the case. In fact, this is rather elegant legislation. Through the use of local area plans and the consolidation of the local area plans of three local authorities, we have simplified the Resource Management Act process. That is the very issue that the member opposite will take out to the community during the next election. That member will use rhetoric to say that the Resource Management Act is a load of old crock and needs to be fixed. Well, it was fixed 2 years ago with 14 amendments to the legislation. Only 1 percent of consents have gone to the Environment Court. The legislation has certainly been amended and strengthened.

In conclusion, this bill is a local bill. It is what the people of the area want. It had 80 percent community support. The bill was promoted by the Waitakere City Council, the Rodney District Council, and the Auckland Regional Council. The bill will provide a long-term policy framework with statutory support, and it will now address the cumulative effects—something the Resource Management Act cannot do on its own. We all acknowledged that fact in the select committee. At this time in the local body electoral cycle, the bill will provide long-term certainty beyond the 3-year electoral cycle. The Waitakere Ranges will possess a nationally significant status under this legislation.

PAULA BENNETT (National) : I thank the House for the opportunity to talk on the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill. [Interruption] I hear little threats from the opposite side of the Chamber that my speech will be sent to wherever the members there like to send it. I say: “Good luck!”. I say to the previous speaker, the chairwoman of the Local Government and Environment Committee, if that was a promotional speech, then it was not a particularly good one. As chairwoman she sat through the submission process and heard from both sides about just how hugely contentious this bill is in the west Auckland area and in Waitakere. I say that for her to stand in this House and try to blame the Opposition for stirring up a process is wrong. This issue was already well on the way before I came along as a candidate, and was well on the way when there were meetings with over 600 people present, where the things being raised were real concerns. The member thinks that if one has an opinion, one is stirring up feelings out in the community. That is another example of how nervous Government members feel about having a debate on the actual issue, instead of making personal attacks and doing everything else that they do. That is all good and all fine, and I tell them to bring it on however they like, quite frankly.

Never before has a local bill, in the experience of some of my colleagues who have been around Parliament far longer than I have, been as contentious as this bill in a local area. The people who spoke in the submission process were heartfelt, genuine, and emotional about the bill, and that came from both sides of the argument. That is the reality; both sides sat there. It was bad enough to read their submissions, but to hear them speak—and we heard over 90 of them in the Waitakere area when we went there—really struck us. It would be fair to say members of the committee from both sides felt that way, and we could see the issue was very personal for a lot of people on both sides of the argument. It was interesting, though, that the argument pretty quickly turned into one of the Government members of the committee trying to espouse the view, as they were today as well, that it was one between eco-angels and devil developers. Of course, there is nothing further from the truth. I have yet to meet anyone who wants to see any sort of tight-fitting subdivision in either the ranges or the foothills. That is the reality.

It is appropriate to hear about some of the problems and to give a voice to some of the people who are absolutely struggling under what they perceive this legislation will actually mean for them. One states: “My whānau owns a 6 acre property surrounded by an urban environment, a long way from the Waitakere Ranges. We made an application to the council to gain consent to build a granny flat for our whānau.”—for the parents, actually. The person goes on to state: “At the time of lodging our application, we were advised that although a discretionary activity, there was no issue from their perspective. It has now cost our whānau $9,000 to try and meet the council’s existing RMA requirements.” So the whānau had got all the neighbours’ approval without any difficulty, and it was easy to get the council’s consent. However, the person then states: “We have since learnt that the proposed Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill has been influential in stalling the application process in gaining resource consent and may prevent us from building suitable accommodation for our parents.” We heard those sorts of stories time and time again from people.

Let us get some of the realities into this debate and talk about what this legislation means for people. It is easy to make legislation that will go across the area and be woolly in its language, and it will be interpreted by lawyers at the end of the day, because that is what happens. Government members can put up all the arguments in the world, but this issue is about people and is about what this legislation means for them in their area. That is what is really important.

I was really taken by one story of a family that had been in the area since 1860. The family talked about its forebears having been part of the milling process, and said one could certainly see the changes in the area that have occurred in well over 130 or 140 years. The family said one would be almost ashamed to think one’s forebears were part of the milling process at that time. But that family is now very proud of the regeneration its members have been a part of. There can be as much research as one wants, on the other side. One can certainly see the results of that, and can walk around and see the evidence of the regeneration that has taken place because of the input of local people and what they are doing in the area.

I put a challenge forward in all seriousness to my own colleagues and to all MPs, including those in the Māori Party, I say to Mr Sharples. I put a challenge forward to the House. I ask those MPs who are voting in support of this bill to demonstrate their understanding and appreciation of the effects of it by voluntarily covenanting their own titles to properties within their personal control, those properties being anywhere in New Zealand, with the same classification and restrictions that will apply to landowners in the Waitakere area covered under this legislation. If they are not prepared to do that, their own consciences should direct them to vote against this bill. As my colleague pointed out, many areas within New Zealand could come under provisions like those in this legislation. MPs who are prepared to support this bill should stand up and say they will have their own whānau and own land affected by the same restrictions that they are putting people under in the Waitakere Ranges area. So all MPs who support the bill should stand up—including Māori MPs—and be proud that what they are doing is putting in place a covenant that will have restrictions on the use of their land. If that makes us all feel better, then I say good luck to us.

Now there is no actual protection greater than that given to the land in a national park. There is no Act that gives greater protection than that, so if we are truly serious about giving this land the greatest possible protection, then that is what we should be doing. There are no national parks north of Taupō, as we have already said, and giving the Waitakere Ranges that status would actually lock in that sort of protection. The National Parks Act states, in section 4(1), that its provisions are “for the purpose of preserving in perpetuity as national parks, for their intrinsic worth and for the benefit, use, and enjoyment of the public, areas of New Zealand that contain scenery of such distinctive quality, ecological systems, or natural features so beautiful, unique, or scientifically important that their preservation” should be covered. That covers the Waitakere Ranges without a doubt.

We can look at the argument and see that it has been turned into one of groups being absolutely pitched against one another, and we can look at the numerous surveys that have been done. It was quite interesting to find, in the process of hearing submissions, that when my colleague Mr John Carter asked every submitter whether he or she had been surveyed about the bill, not a single one of them could stand up and say that he or she had. It was really quite fascinating to be unable to find the people who had been surveyed, and there were questions about whether the survey was truly as representative as had been said. People choose to live in areas like the Waitakere Ranges because they absolutely love them. I think there is evidence, time and time again, of the care and protection that people give to this area. In all fairness, when one looks at some of the properties and the way they are treated, one sees they are treated better than the Auckland Regional Council and the local councils treat their properties. That happens because the owners care more about them than the councils do about their properties, and they actually make sure they put their energy into them.

I truly, truly believe that it is a bad precedent for Parliament to bypass the checks and balances of the plan-making process in the Environment Court and impose what is an overriding plan. I fundamentally, in myself, think this bill is bad legislation. It is an absolute shame that it will not do what those well-intentioned people hope it will do. Some people have gone out and said that this is the way they want to protect the ranges. I, unlike the members on the other side of the House, am not going to stand up and lambaste those on the other side who have a different opinion from mine. I actually think that they are quite well intentioned, and that fundamentally they are trying to protect the ranges. I think that is what the council is trying to do, and that it is well intentioned. But it is our fundamental belief that this legislation will not protect the ranges, and that its ramifications actually go far outside that briefing.

This bill has been a learning experience for me—I do not make any pretences about that. I have learnt more than I previously knew about local area plans, about district councils, about councils and their own regional plans, and about long-term council community plans. I have learnt about the process of going to the community and asking what it wants, and, boy, at times I heard that it was a very, very long process to achieve what it wants. Orātia is actually a classic example of a community with its own long-term council community plan. The people there were actually saying that they felt they had gone through a process that was long term and understandable, and that to see legislation like this come in and cut through what they as individuals had already participated in was hugely hurtful and detrimental to them.

In conclusion, I say we just do not believe that this bill will protect the ranges to the same extent as such a process would, and for that reason we will be voting against it.

Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) : Mention has been made that the Local Government and Environment Committee considered this Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill and improved on it, but for the sake of people who are listening, I just want to reflect upon the composition of the select committee. There were four National members, four Labour members, and one Green member. I think we have to recognise that the balance of power lay with the one Green member, and that that composition is not necessarily a reflection of the composition of the House itself. Although it is not unusual in an MMP environment to have that sort of arrangement in our select committees, it does not necessarily mean it reflects the House as a whole.

I lived for a while up in Waiatarua. For people who do not know it, it is right up the top. It is a word that has entered the international language—the language of international athletics—because Waiatarua is a long, gruelling run, and it came from when Arthur Lydiard used to train the likes of Peter Snell. One of the most unusual things that would happen up there was that one would get up in the morning and it would be bright and sunny. Then as one descended down through the Waitakere Ranges through the clouds, there would be a misty, moisty morning below them.

Also I taught at Henderson Intermediate School and lived in Glen Eden. Every morning I used to go through Parrs Cross Road, past Bruce McLaren Intermediate, and through to Henderson Intermediate itself. That reminds me, in fact, of Dr Pita Sharples. He cajoled us at that particular time to go for a long march over the Waitakeres one Saturday morning to raise money for the Hoani Waititi Marae. Certainly I am very much aware not only of the ranges—the park and the heritage area—but also of the foothills.

When I was teaching at Henderson Intermediate in 1974-75, a long time ago, Lincoln Road was largely orchards and vineyards from the intermediate school onwards. Now it is just absolutely packed; it is the middle of suburbia. There is the Warehouse, Mitre 10, Pak ‘N Save, and you name it. It is certainly a completely different place.

I guess the point I am trying to make is that there is no need to convince me of the beauty of the Waitakere Ranges and of how important they are to Auckland, our largest city. In a way they dominate the city. If we sit at Eden Park, what do we look out at? We see the Waitakeres, in the same way as the Blue Mountains dominate Sydney.

However, I now live at a place called Ngunguru. That also has an iconic sand spit, which is under the threat of development by a rapacious property development company. In Northland there is a whole pile of iconic places. In the Bay of Islands—for example, the area around Kawakawa and Ōhaeāwai—there were a lot of significant battles, as Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith would know. Ruapekapeka is there. If one goes further north there is Doubtless Bay, where Surville came into Brody’s Creek and dropped three anchors, and there is Lake Ohia and the gumfields—whole piles of iconic places.

This legislation is based upon the assumption or premise that our existing legislation is not working or that it is flawed. In fact, the select committee report actually states this. It states quite clearly that it does not work. It states: “The bill reflects the promoters’ belief that further local statutory guidance is needed to provide sufficient long-term protection to the heritage area from the adverse cumulative effects of urban growth and development.” People cannot tell me that the Waitakere Ranges is the only place that is facing those cumulative effects. I can tell members that the coastline area around Ngunguru is certainly facing the same things, and John Carter will also tell members that.

It has always been New Zealand First’s position that if there is a fundamental flaw in the legislation that is supposed to be operating, then one goes back and fixes up that legislation; we do not do it on a piecemeal, bit by bit process. That is exactly what we did with the Hauraki Gulf Maritime Park Bill. We said that if there was something wrong with the planning mechanisms that are already in place that are supposed to be protecting the environment, then let us go back and fix those up, instead of fixing up something that is just in that particular place. So New Zealand First is not able to support this bill, and we say that with regret because we recognise the sincerity of the person in whose name the bill is. However, we believe that it points to something that actually requires a different answer.

The second thing—and this, we believe, is a real flaw—is that the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area will encompass 27,720 hectares of public and private land. Elsewhere we are told that the Waitakere Ranges Regional Park, which exists now, contains some 17,000 hectares. That, by the way, is the playground we are talking about; not the 10,000 hectares of private land, which is not the playground of Aucklanders, I have to say. Yet this heritage area will encompass 10,000 acres and, as has already been said, 22,000 people will effectively lose at least some of the property rights they have at the moment. Therefore, New Zealand First has some real difficulties with this particular approach.

New Zealand First thinks it is certainly worthwhile looking at the suggestion put forward by Paula Bennett, although we believe it is even more important that we go back to the fundamental legislation around the Resource Management Act and get that sorted out so that we have adequate protections against the cumulative effects, which the Resource Management Act does not take into account at the moment. In fact, the Resource Management Act is an enabling Act, which means that even if councils want to do something about the cumulative effects, they are often restricted from doing so. Certainly we believe that we need to go back to the Resource Management Act and work on that.

I will just point out that we concur with the National minority view in the commentary on the bill. I will read some of it out: “This bill adds a mechanism for the development of local area plans (LAPS). These will sit alongside district, regional, and national plans. Councils are also required to have annual plans and Long Term Council Community Plans (LTCCPs). These multiple and complex plan processes add confusion and cost to local government at a time when the public is in revolt over rating increases.” New Zealand First concurs with that particular point. We believe that it is at the nub of the particular question we have here.

Therefore, New Zealand First will not be able to support this bill—as we stated, in fact, during the first reading debate. We will be voting against it. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

KEITH LOCKE (Green) : The Green Party is strongly in support of the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill. It comes out of a long campaign generated by the people of the area of Waitakere City, and people in the ranges in particular, headed by the Waitakere Ranges Protection Society. I am proud that a number of Greens have been involved in that campaign. One Kath Dewar has held a leading office in that society, and a long campaign drew support from the community, MPs, the Waitakere City Council, the Rodney District Council, and the Auckland Regional Council. They are all supporting this bill.

I think what is happening here today through this bill is important for the whole country. In fact, the term “national significance” comes into the bill as a back-up—the reason for implementing this bill. But it is important for the whole of Auckland. Aucklanders, the people in our biggest city, travel regularly into the heritage area, either into the foothills, the park itself, or to the seashore environment on the western side of the heritage area. Solutions like a national park are not particularly appropriate because 30 percent of the heritage area is in private hands, and that is the nub of a lot of the problem—that private land is under pressure for greater subdivision. That affects all of us, not just the people who go into the heritage area but people like myself, who, as Brian Donnelly just mentioned, can see the Waitakere Ranges from Eden Park. I live in Mount Eden and every morning I look out at that vista too, and I do not want it to degenerate into just a backdrop of houses. I like that backdrop of the Waitakere Ranges.

It is even more important to protect this area because of the expansion of Auckland in terms of population and geographical spread. We have to put restraints there. There are pressures for greater subdivision of private land. There are the normal pressures, through the planning process, where people look for all exceptional circumstances and creep around the regulations however strongly we try to put them in, and that has been happening. The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment called it death by a thousand cuts. Bit by bit the number of subdivisions expands and the lot size has gone down over the years. The average lot size used to be 20 hectares in that rural backdrop; now it is gone down to 4 hectares, and there is pressure for it to go down further. There is, in reality, a creep through the existing plan and Resource Management Act system towards further subdivision to a disadvantageous extent, and that is reinforced by the way land prices are now. As everyone knows, housing prices and land prices have gone up hugely, which brings that extra pressure for people to make money out of subdivisions.

Then there is the population pressure in Auckland. That puts a lot of pressure on subdivision, particularly when we have politicians like John Key suggesting that the city edge be extended out into green areas in the west. That would lead to more subdivision as well. We can have good and bad Governments, and some of the Governments allow more subdivision that way, and we can have good and bad councils. The problem is that we need only one bad council with a bad district plan that allows a lot of subdivision, and that will muck things up for future generations. I think that Mike Lee put it nicely in a submission he made to the select committee. He said that this bill provides us with a long-term instrument for getting the right economic, cultural, social, and environmental balance for the heritage area. The bill itself talks about looking at things in totality, or holistically, and in a long-term way. Sometimes, unless we have that sort of framework for looking at things holistically and in a long-term way, we will go wrong, particularly in a heritage area such as this, which, as the bill points out, is of national significance.

All the important aspects of the heritage area are spelt out in 10 recitals in the preamble to the bill. There are a lot of ecosystems in that heritage area, from the coastal ecosystem, the ranges—the mountainous ecosystem—to the grasslands on the east coast and the wetlands on the western coast. There is a whole lot of biodiversity that needs to be protected. In fact, the Department of Conservation is trying to put some of the bird life that has been developed on Tiritiri Mātangi Island over into the ranges with, I think, some success recently. The department has been increasing the populations of birds such as the stitchbird, the saddleback, and the kokako and putting them into the Waitakeres. There are also the streams and the water systems, which are important in their own right and also for a good water supply for Auckland. There is the scenic character, obviously, of the area, both of the forest and of the landforms and grasslands below the park. The recreation aspects are pointed out in the bill, as is the fact that the foothills are a buffer. It is good to have a buffer between the actual park itself and the suburban environment.

The bill also talks about the cultural distinctiveness of the area and how in the eastern foothills there is very much a low-density lifestyle. On the western side there is a lifestyle that is trying to prevent too much development. There are a lot of fights going on around Pīhā and places like that over particular applications for three-storey buildings and the like. So having a framework to protect that low-density lifestyle is important. Also, there is Māori cultural heritage, which is extremely important. The bill has written very strongly into it the importance of recognising the rights of the tangata whenua in that area. There is a whole historical dimension, in terms of the area being a very early area of settlement involving forestry and all the other things that went on there. The historical—the archaeological—dimension of the area is so important.

As I said, all this will be taken into account in a holistic way, and the various regional and district plans and the Auckland regional growth strategy will have to take into account what is being provided for in this bill, as also will resource consents, designations, local area management plans, and recognition of tangata whenua. All that has to be taken into account within the framework of this bill. Brian Donnelly said that perhaps we should just change the Resource Management Act, but I think there is room between the national park structure, which has been talked about in this debate and is obviously very rigid and really for serious conservation areas, and the Resource Management Act, which is a bit more local, to have a framework for an area like the Waitakeres to help protect it in a long-term way.

The framework between the national park and the Resource Management Act processes is good, and it helps the Resource Management Act processes to be appropriate. The population is very supportive of this bill, too. A survey was conducted in the area and 92 percent of people came out in support of it. So the bill has very strong local support and it would do politicians well to support it.

Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party) : Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. People north of the Bombay Hills will be hoping like mad that in terms of consultation with Māori, the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill might strike it lucky this time—and they will not all be brown folk, either.

The Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill has particular meaning for the peoples from the ancestral lands of Ngāti Whātua Ngā Rima o Kaipara, Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei, and Te Kawerau-a-Maki, and from Te Taou. They come to this bill focused on their precious responsibilities as kaitiaki, seeking to protect their ngahere, awa, and puna from further degradation. They seek to have a voice.

The stage has now been set for how mana whenua are likely to be recognised by the Waitakere City Council, Rodney District Council, and Auckland Regional Council in working with iwi to promote the long-term protection and enhancement of this area and its heritage features. We too, the Māori Party, came to this bill looking to see how the interests of mana whenua are to be respected in caring for the Waitakere Ranges and foothills.

The importance of the Waitakere Ranges, foothills, and coastal areas is of special significance to two takiwā, hapū, and marae trusts of Ngāti Whātua, and they are Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei and the five south Kaipara marae represented by Ngāti Whātua Ngā Rima o Kaipara. For all these groups, the affected whenua, wai māori, and natural resources of taonga tuku iho identified in this bill are invested with much ongoing value in Te Rohe o Ngāti Whātua. So it has been extremely positive to read and hear that the rūnanga and individual whānau, marae, and hapū within these two takiwā support the bill, although they recognise that to tangata whenua, cultural heritage is much more significant than is currently being portrayed in the bill.

The rūnanga’s submission outlines specific and pragmatic recommendations to enhance the bill, suggesting that the intent of clause 9 to adopt a precautionary approach be strengthened, that tangata whenua participation in the governance of Watercare Services Ltd needs to be included in the criteria, and that wai māori, as a basis of its historic, cultural, and spiritual relationships with Waitakere, be included in the deed of acknowledgement between mana whenua and the three councils provided for in the bill. So far, so good.

In fact, one of the outstanding features of the separate submission from Ngati Whatua Nga Rima o Kaipara Charitable Trust was its generosity in pointing out that the wai māori allocation and monitoring rights afforded to Watercare Services Ltd not only excluded Ngāti Whātua but also deprived Kawerau-a-Maki of these assumed rights.

That made me reflect again on the words of the Waitangi Tribunal, which concluded that the process of settling claims was damaging more relationships than it was improving. The tribunal has stated, particularly in the case of Tāmaki-makau-rau, that the process is creating divisions within Māori society that are very damaging—and I quote: “Damage to whanaungatanga, to te taura Tangata, is a great wrong: it affects Māori society at its very core.”

In light of such division and damage, it is important to point out in relation to this bill, the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill, how mana whenua groups are prepared to maintain our time-honoured traditions of valuing the whakapapa connections and preserving whanaungatanga through their commitment to working together. But it appears that that process has not been perfect from the start.

We learnt that Te Rūnanga o te Taou initially opposed this bill, and supported landowners in the Muriwai district. They spoke of “token consultation” taking place at “an extremely late stage”. Indeed, their submission revealed the concern of Te Taou that not only had they not been brought into the frame of consultation until the first reading of the bill but also they had not been cited as having an interest as part of the tangata whenua relationship within the Waitakere Ranges region. Disappointingly, they are still not named in the bill’s preamble alongside Ngāti Whātua and Te Kawerau-a-Maki, despite evidence from the Waitangi Tribunal’s Kaipara report being presented to the select committee.

This bill has many issues that give cause for debate—cultural heritage, environmental protection, local government relationships, wai māori allocation and monitoring, and resource sustainability. The Māori Party comes to this bill—as with all others—thinking how best to support the interests of mana whenua in upholding their rights, defending their responsibilities, and promoting their ongoing status in the best interests of the nation.

We have heard the view from Te Taou that consultation has been unsatisfactory from their point of view, and the concerns from Ngāti Whātua that there are varying governance relationships with the three councils that in some cases exclude the two takiwā tribal constructs and traditional marae and hapū. We remind the House that local decision-making needs to involve mana whenua. We know that the mana whenua rōpū is currently being established, and it would be great to see that structure specified in the bill, to ensure their inclusion by the councils. Of course, I will be writing to all of those three councils, sending them my speech, and suggesting that they inform me of their relationships in terms of consultation with those iwi groups.

Structures are already in place. Section 81, “Contributions to decision-making processes by Māori”, of the Local Government Act 2002 is a pretty good place to start, and should be highlighted. One of the issues that comes through loud and clear is that of kaitiakitanga and the huge strain created by the damaging impact on the environment of large-scale development. The view from mana whenua is their absolute commitment towards protecting their ancestral lands—commitment that they expressed in various recommendations to lock down and extend the regulatory protections. That is from them.

The key impact of this bill will be in restricting further private-land subdivision, so that environmental protection and sustainability objectives are given priority. In that respect, mana whenua have viewed the bill as being helpful in protecting the area from the pressure of property developers. Cultural heritage should be protected by resource consents considered in a holistic strategic framework that includes all factors, not just commercial investments but also as part of our response to climatic change.

Mana whenua therefore welcome the opportunity that a strategic, overarching framework would bring to this area, mitigating against the effects of urban growth and going further than the Resource Management Act by providing for more long-term, consistent planning, monitoring, and reporting by the three councils involved.

The Māori Party welcomes the advice and feedback of mana whenua, and respects their wishes in seeing this bill as a means to continue to support their vital roles within the context of kaitiakitanga.

When my colleague Hone Harawira spoke at the first reading of this bill, he asked how the voices of Ngāti Whātu Ngā Rima o Kaipara, Te Uri o Hau, Ngāti Rongo, Te Kawerau-a-Maki, Ngāti Whatua ki Ōrākei, and all those who share common whakapapa ties to this land will be sustained in an ongoing and meaningful way. Clauses 24 to 28, which provide for a deed of acknowledgment with all tangata whenua groups who have a historical, cultural, traditional, or spiritual relationship with the land, are a step forward in the right direction. We are pleased to follow that lead and to support the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Bill at this second reading before the House.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) :Tēnā koutou katoa. Ko Titirangi te maunga, ko Te Whau te awa, ko Hoani Waititi te marae, ko Ngāti Pākehā te iwi, ko Waitakere te wāhi.

• [An interpretation in English was given to the House.]

[Greetings to you all. Titirangi is the mountain, Te Whau is the river, Hoani Waititi is the courtyard, Ngāti Pākehā is the tribe, and Waitakere is the place.]

I welcome and support the reintroduction of this Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill to the House. With my colleagues, I have been advocating the importance of the protection of the Waitakere Ranges since I was first elected—indeed, before then—so I am very pleased to speak today in further support of this bill. I wish first to congratulate the Local Government and Environment Committee, led by Steve Chadwick, on its report presented to this House. I am pleased to support my friend and colleague Lynne Pillay, who is the member guiding this bill through the House, and I recognise the tremendous work that she has done to bring it to this point.

Before reflecting on the history of the bill and some of its key provisions as reported by the select committee, I wish to offer a few brief comments on the contributions of other members. I express my deep respect and gratitude for the very considered approach to this bill that has been adopted by Māori Party members. They are speaking on behalf of and for tangata whenua, they are expressing the rights and the mana of mana whenua, and they are making a real difference to the protection of the Waitakere Ranges area. I acknowledge them, and the mana they are displaying in the House today. I pledge my support for further improvements to issues of cultural heritage, and for improvements to the governance relationship between tangata whenua, local and regional authorities, and central government.

I wish that all contributions had been equally considered. It is my obligation to point out several inconsistencies in offerings made to the House by members opposite. On one thing I agree with Nick Smith, the lead speaker from the National Party—that this will be a key election issue. Yes, indeed it will. Indeed, it has been a key election issue for every election in which I have run, in the Waitakere area. I think it is notable that the only really scientific poll we have of local opinion showed that 77 percent of Waitakere City residents and 81 percent of Aucklanders support at least the intent of this bill. That is the best clue that we have. All I can say, as someone who has plodded the pavements of the Waitakere area many, many times, is that that is about right. It is about three-quarters to one-quarter, or four-fifths to one-fifth—certainly the overwhelming majority—of west Aucklanders and Aucklanders who want to see this vital area preserved.

I think National is handing members on this side a great gift. Based on hearing Paula Bennett’s contribution, I do not think she will run again, because she is either saying that the bill does not go far enough and we need a national park—which would effectively exclude 21,000 residents of Waitakere City and their property rights—or she is saying that the bill goes too far and should be scrapped. Either way, it is hardly consistent logic and it hardly reflects the majority view of the area. So I take it that she will not run again, but we appreciate the contribution she has made to date.

Nick Smith came up with several completely illogical arguments. The first was that the bill adds to bureaucracy, and he mentioned that there is a district plan, a Resource Management Act, a national policy statement, and coastal policy statements. But the whole point of the bill is that it aligns and interprets the provisions within the boundaries of the area to simplify and to provide certainty and transparency for local residents, as well as for territorial authorities. It reduces rather than increases bureaucracy, and for that reason alone it commands the support of many people.

Several members said that the bill contains so-called woolly drafting. I will not pretend that the bill as first introduced to the House, on the basis of drafting from the local proponents rather than the Parliamentary Counsel Office, was perfect—it was not. But it has had a very, very thorough select committee process. Expert advice has been received from the Parliamentary Counsel Office, the Crown Law Office, the Ministry for the Environment, and the legal resources of both the proponents and opponents of the bill. Democracy has worked as it should have worked. We now have a bill that the majority of the select committee has reported back with extensive amendment, and that satisfies the concerns of officials and commands the support of our Government. This is a good bill and it is now in good drafting shape.

The only example that National could come up with as being woolly was a reference in the bill to the cherished cultural heritage of Māori, where it says that this part of New Zealand represents the tradition and the legend of Maui. National members criticised the reference to the fish, and if the best they can do is to denigrate the history of the cultural area, then I say to them that they should go back to the drawing board and enjoy at least another 3 years in Opposition. Until Opposition members learn to represent all New Zealanders, and do justice to everybody’s cultural traditions, that is where they belong.

Paula Bennett suggested the national park idea. You know, I remember Nick Smith in 1999 floating the idea of a marine park for the West Coast. That was an alternative to moderate reform that would have commanded support. Members can call me a cynic, but I reckon that the reason National floated that whopper was because it knew that the proposal could never get through and that it could be only a substitute for real reform. That is what that shallow proposal for a national park is today—a substitute for the real reform that has the support of the select committee and the support of the legal experts, and that will command the support of a majority of this House.

So why is the bill here, and what is the chief argument against it? The bill is here for one simple reason: it is impossible, logically and in practice, to determine the long-term future of any area simply on the basis of individual consents when there are long-term special features that must be considered in an overarching policy. Sometimes it is possible to achieve that through a national policy statement. If the issues are nationwide and sector-specific, that is appropriate. Sometimes it is possible to achieve that through a coastal policy statement. But where the issues are inherently local, and where they can be addressed without violating Resource Management Act process or concept—as this bill now does not—then it is perfectly appropriate that a local solution be introduced. It is the only way to fix the problem of cumulative effects—the death by a thousand cuts.

Lest members opposite forget, I remind them that the last time the National Party had influence of any measure on the Waitakere City Council, which was around 1998, the then council overrode the district plan and was taken to the Environment Court because it was not prepared to abide by due process. Things like the Little Muddy Creek study—do we forget?—overrode the proper consultation process around the district plan. If their henchmen and henchwomen could do it then, they could do it again in the future. That is why the majority of West Auckland people—and all New Zealanders—deserve a legal framework that will provide security, certainty, and transparency—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: That’s waffle!

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: —for this cherished area until long after that noise box has ceased to spew his ridiculous drivel on to the floor of this Chamber. This land is the fish in the legend of tangata whenua, and if the member had paid more attention to Māori cultural rights and traditions he might have had a majority for his bankrupt point of view. He did not. Shame on him!

I feel very passionate about this bill. From the time I was first campaigning in this area I have campaigned on this issue, and before me was the Rt Hon Jonathan Hunt, the former MP for New Lynn. For 30 years he foresaw a day when we could have lasting protection for our cherished ranges. Today is one step closer to that important day. I commend this bill to pass its second reading.

JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) : The first thing I want to put on the record is that the National Party recognises the Waitakere Ranges as being iconic. We made that clear in the minority report we presented to the House. I would be very surprised if there were anybody in this Parliament who is not of that view. They are a special set of ranges and it is unique in lots of ways in our country—and in any city in the world—to have a range of mountains behind our Queen City. We think it is important that that is recognised. Indeed, that is one of the reasons why we want to put it in the annals of this House.

The second thing we want to acknowledge is the fact that a lot of the reasons why the Waitakere Ranges are as they are today is because of the people who live there. If one looks back over the history of the Waitakere Ranges—going back 50 or 100 years—one sees that a lot of areas were burnt, desolate, raped—

Hon David Cunliffe: Felled.

JOHN CARTER: Yes, whatever. They were used for a whole lot of purposes, as was the wont of those times. What has happened is that, over time, people with absolute and keen interest in the environment, and in the Waitakere environment itself, have bought into the area. A lot of the people who live there have a long, long history in the area. They have worked with the newer residents to re-establish the environment that is there today. They are to be commended for that. Those people can take great pride in the fact that the Waitakere Ranges, as we know them today, are primarily there not because of something the Government, local council, or regional council did but because they as residents and citizens of that area have taken pride in their own environment. They are to be commended for that.

That brings us to the reason we are debating the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill. It is a view that there needs to be some special recognition of the Waitakere Ranges. But I ask the question that if they are as good as they are—and they are, because the residents have made them so—why do we suddenly need to protect the ranges from the residents themselves? I would have thought, having looked at the history and at what has developed over the last 20, 30, and 50 years and longer, that the residents have done a good job by themselves, for themselves, and are capable of continuing to do so.

Then we come to the bill. It needs to be put into Hansard that one of the first questions we asked of the officials who presented to the Local Government and Environment Committee was why we need this bill. We were told repeatedly—I kept asking the question, as did other members of the committee—that the ranges could not be protected under the Resource Management Act and the district scheme and that we needed something special. Then we were told that the bill does not actually do anything more but we needed something special because we could not do it under the present Resource Management Act.

Paula Bennett: And you asked again and again.

JOHN CARTER: We kept asking again and again whether we could do it under the Resource Management Act. They told us we could, but that the Resource Management Act does not do it and we need this bill because it can then do it. I kept saying that there was a conflict and that we were getting conflicting advice. On the one hand the officials were saying we need the bill because we cannot do it, but then they were assuring us that we could do it under the Resource Management Act and the present district scheme. You know, I do not know how many times I asked the question. In fact, we got to the stage where we asked the officials whether they could tell us the status of this bill as opposed to the Resource Management Act. My colleague Nick Smith asked that question. We debated that issue and received advice that if the bill had continued in the form in which it was then, it would have had a higher standing than the Resource Management Act itself. Paula Bennett, Nick Smith, and myself—and others on the committee—then had to get advice on how we could reduce that status, because we cannot have a local bill that has a higher status than general legislation.

So the bill was changed, which brought us to the position where the question was that if it is now of lower status, and if we can do what the bill intends to do under the Resource Management Act, why do we need it? I have to say that having questioned the officials time and time again, we finally got a concession from them that they had misinformed us. They had actually deliberately lied to the committee. That is the best way to put it. They had told us that we needed the bill because they could not do it. Finally, they conceded that they could do all the things we needed to do under the present district scheme.

Dr Wayne Mapp: Who lied?

JOHN CARTER: The local government officials.

Paula Bennett: You were indignant.

JOHN CARTER: I was seriously upset by that. I was so upset that I took it to the mayor and said: “Do you understand what happened? Your officials who came before us lied to the select committee.” He said he did not believe that. I said: “Well, let’s go and ask.” At the local government conference I asked the officials and we had confirmation from them that they had misled the select committee. I say to this House that for that reason alone—the fact that the officials felt they had to go out of their way to lie to the select committee, and to this Parliament as a consequence—we should not be passing this bill. We cannot have a local bill that is not based on the truth. I have to say that I was seriously disappointed, upset, and indignant, as Paula Bennett has just said, that officials came before a select committee of Parliament and misled us.

The fact is that as the bill is drafted at the moment, we have been assured by officials time and time again now that under the Resource Management Act and the district scheme we can do what this bill allows. One of the things I have always fought against in this Parliament is passing unnecessary legislation. If this legislation goes through today—if it goes through the process and is passed into law—then we will have passed legislation that is unnecessary. If this bill was as necessary as we have been told it is, then there are other ways in which the matter could have been addressed, and it should have been done that way. The local authority has the power under its district scheme to do the things this bill intends. The local authority has the power to change the district scheme to allow—

Dr Wayne Mapp: Make its rules.

JOHN CARTER: Absolutely! Indeed, another worry we have with this bill is that it will add another layer of bureaucracy and another layer of law. It is unnecessary. It will not achieve anything. But here we are today debating legislation that will put more bureaucracy and rate costs on to the local people but will achieve nothing. I say that for that reason this Parliament should not support the bill.

The National Party supports the Waitakere Ranges. We think they are iconic. We have said so in our minority report. The caucus is fully of that view. But we do not support unnecessary legislation. Today I say to this House that that is exactly what we are doing here. For that reason—and that reason alone—I will vote against the legislation, and I know my colleagues will join me in not supporting this legislation.

• Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

DARIEN FENTON (Labour) : It is a great pleasure to take a call on the second reading of the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill. I want to talk about where I live, because I live at the end of the suburban railway line in west Auckland, in a small village called Waitakere. The people in my street look out over farmland, the foothills, and the magnificent ranges in the background. They are not rich landowners. They are ordinary New Zealanders who, like me, have chosen to live in an area that is special, and that has cultural, historical, and ecological importance to all New Zealanders. So I can confirm to the House, as a Waitakere resident, that the bill we are debating tonight reflects the desire of the local people in my community to ensure that the magnificent Waitakere Ranges, foothills, and coastal areas are kept for the enjoyment of future generations.

A short drive up the road from my place is the wonderful Bethells Beach/Te Henga Beach. People have lived there for a thousand years. Te Kawerau-a-Maki cultivated the lowlands and lived in fortified pā sites along the cliffs above the shoreline. In the middle of last century European settlers came to fell the giant kauri trees and ship them out along the coastal rail line, the remains of which are still visible today. They also dug for kauri gum, they established farms, vineyards, and orchards, and they made bricks and pottery. By the 1920s the lumberjacks had exhausted much of the kauri, and the regeneration process of Auckland’s fantastic back garden began.

The nearby village of Swanson used to be Auckland’s dumping-ground, but the community has built on its settler history and, along with the local council, has revitalised it with new parks, tree plantings, and an iconic railway station. The Waitakere Ranges Regional Park is close by, and is one part of the Waitakere ranges heritage area established under this bill. The parkland covers 17,000 hectares and is an important natural area, not only because of its nationally significant landforms, landscapes, and biodiversity but also because of its close proximity to urban Auckland.

This is the heart of the heritage area, and it had its origins as a protected area way back in 1895, when the Crown vested 1,900 hectares of forested land in the Auckland City Council as reserves for the purpose of recreation and the conservation of native flora and fauna. The parkland was rapidly extended by purchases and by substantial private gifts. There has been intensive community activity—and we have heard a lot about that in this debate—and advocacy for the area ever since then, and the recognition of the national significance of this heritage area, which is the purpose of this bill and is outlined in the preamble, has been with us all for a long time.

This bill not only recognises the national significance of the park but also restates its purpose. It re-establishes a planning regime that is certain and is tied to delivering on long-term objectives. The Waitakere Ranges area, where my family, neighbours, and friends live, is also a vital asset for Auckland citizens, who, with a short drive to the west, can walk in ancient forests, experience new birdlife, learn about our early history, or escape to the wild west coast beaches; 2.5 million people visit the magnificent parkland and beaches every year. So this bill is of importance to all citizens, not just those of us who live in the foothills of the Waitakere Ranges.

Even National members recognise that the Waitakere Ranges are an Auckland and a New Zealand icon, and they have called for them to be given national park status, as provided for under existing law. But I think National has completely misread this bill and the reaction of local people. As a local person, I can account for that. What those members do not seem to understand is that it is simply not possible to protect the ranges without protecting the foothills and the coastal areas. If we do not, the whole area is at risk. Quite frankly, as a Waitakere resident I have been appalled at the misinformation and deliberate scare tactics of some of the opponents of this bill, including some in the National Party. We need to learn fast that interventions like this bill are essential if we are serious about our planet. Economics cannot always be the overriding concern; that is old thinking. Economics have to be weighed up alongside the environment, and sometimes the environment needs to win.

There are other concerns for Aucklanders. The Waitakere Ranges supply about a quarter of Auckland’s water supply. There are three concrete and two earth dams in the ranges, and the story of how they were built in the early 1900s is worth a good study, for anyone who does not know about it. If members have not been for a ride on the tramline that was originally built to haul in the materials to construct the Waitakere Dam, I recommend it to anyone.

Darren Hughes: How much does it cost?

DARIEN FENTON: It is cheap, very cheap, so the National Party could afford it. Tram riders experience a bush-brushed ride through tunnels, and over bridges and viaducts, in a fantastic introduction to the remarkable rainforest growing right on Auckland’s doorstep. Watercare Services leases the 6,600 hectares of catchment land from Auckland regional parks, and today these areas serve a dual purpose as protected catchment supply areas and as recreational and biological assets managed within the regional park.

The bill acknowledges the historical importance of this supply in the development of Auckland, and it identifies its operation as a heritage feature to be protected through its water supply and recreation functions. The ranges deliver services that underpin the Auckland economy and its emergence as a city region of international importance. The closeness of the Waitakere Ranges to New Zealand’s largest urban area contributes both to their unique value and to the risks proposed to them. They are under the intense development pressures of a rapidly growing metropolitan area. For example, in the foothills 40 years ago the minimum lot size was 20.2 hectares, at the beginning of the 1980s it was 5 hectares, then more recently it was 4 hectares, and now it is proposed that lots are to be sold at 1 hectare and less.

One of the particular reasons why I support this bill is that in my area we have seen some disastrous attempts at development nearby in Swanson, resulting in blocked streams and slips and a large scar on the hillside that is just starting to heal. The council has had to work very, very hard to rectify the problems that this development has caused. Another reason I support this bill is that our back garden is now a bird sanctuary. Believe me, we did not start out intending to make it that way; it was a matter of our not cutting down trees for a few years. But it has become so because of the restoration of the forest and the planting of trees in the foothills, which has brought more birdlife into the area. Rare birds not seen on the mainland for decades have been introduced into the regional park. Hihi, whitehead, and native robins can now be spotted regularly. There are plans to introduce other species that until now have survived only in specific conservation protected areas, offshore islands, or forests. What a wonderful thing that has been for our local people—to have birds like that, which we thought were almost extinct on the mainland.

The Waitakere Ranges provide a beautiful backdrop to urban Auckland. This bill helps ensure that the ranges—including the foothills and coastal villages, which are also covered by the heritage area created by the bill—are protected for future generations to enjoy. I commend the councils involved in promoting this bill, the Auckland Regional Council, the Rodney District Council, and the Waitakere City Council, for their foresight and their determination. I also commend all the citizens of Waitakere who have been so passionate about this and who for many years have worked hard to get us to the point where we are debating this bill.

I also congratulate the able member in charge of the bill, my fellow westie Lynne Pillay, and I congratulate the Local Government and Environment Committee, led by the very wonderful Steve Chadwick, on its intelligent consideration of the bill. I know that my family and my neighbours will be celebrating along with many others as this bill moves through its remaining stages in the House. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Hon TAU HENARE (National) : I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder whether you could send a message to the people in charge of the speaker system, because I did not hear most of the speech made by the member who has just resumed her seat. I wonder whether you could get somebody to turn the speakers up.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sorry to hear that. If I had been aware of it earlier, I would have. It will be looked into immediately. [Interruption]

Hon TAU HENARE: It is not a flippant point of order. I honestly could not hear, and there was not a lot of noise in the Chamber.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, but it is becoming flippant by you simply saying that it is not a flippant point of order. I realise it is not, I did not take it as such, and the process is under way.

Hon TAU HENARE: That is all we need to hear from you.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is all you are going to hear, and you will keep quiet now.

Hon TAU HENARE: Thank you very much.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Do not make a habit of that, Mr Tau Henare—all right? Good.

Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Labour—Auckland Central) : I move, That the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill be now read a first time. I am delighted, for the second time in my parliamentary career, to introduce a private bill on behalf of a group of far-thinking and public-spirited Aucklanders—and, in this case, on behalf of a group of organisations—that will be of enormous benefit to all Aucklanders, and, I truly believe, to New Zealand. As a new member for Auckland Central in 1996, one of the first calls I received was from Mr Grant Kirby, the acting manager of MOTAT, Auckland’s Museum of Transport and Technology. Mr Kirby, along with the then councillor Bruce Hucker, who was the chair of that trust board, asked me to introduce a private bill on their behalf so that the Museum of Transport and Technology, which is undoubtedly a museum of enormous benefit to all Aucklanders—and, as I say, to New Zealand—could get regional funding.

I am delighted that that bill, after a great deal of work and consideration, was the first bill passed by the Labour-led Government in the year 2000. Indeed, it was the first bill passed by this Government, after the ignominious defeat of the then National Government. I am absolutely delighted, on behalf of a group of Auckland organisations that includes the Auckland Rescue Helicopter Trust, Surf Life Saving Northern Region, WaterSafe Auckland, the New Zealand National Maritime Museum, the Stardome Observatory and Planetarium, the Auckland Festival Trust, the National Opera of New Zealand, the Auckland Philharmonia Orchestra, and the Auckland Theatre Company, to introduce a bill that is modelled in many respects on that Museum of Transport and Technology legislation.

Just to reassure members, I will read a little from the 2005-06 annual report of that museum. The chairman of an enormous group of volunteers and enthusiasts, Peter Drummond, said: “I would also like to acknowledge the continuing support and encouragement given by the Auckland territorial local authorities to MOTAT, not only for their vital financial contribution but also for their genuine interest and the support shown by elected Councillors, council officers and staff.” The general manager went on to say: “The museum continues to gratefully receive the support of the members of the TLA Electoral College and the councillors and officers of the contributing Auckland local authorities without which most of the progress over the last five years would not have been possible”.

I assure members of the House that the Museum of Transport and Technology is now regionally funded, to the great acclaim of Aucklanders. Its ability to provide facilities around the astonishing collection of Auckland’s transport and technology heritage has been developed in all sorts of ways, to the benefit of all of our children and, indeed, for the generations that are not yet born.

The bill that has been brought together, which has a website called www.together.org.nz—with the heading: “Creating a better Auckland for everyone” on its home page—has similar support from the extensive survey that has been done of many Aucklanders. Ninety-five percent of Aucklanders see benefits in the Auckland Rescue Helicopter Trust to Aucklanders with special interests, and to most Aucklanders; 97 percent support the Auckland Zoo, which is not included in this legislation but I hope one day will be; 93 percent support Surf Life Saving Northern Region; 75 percent support WaterSafe Auckland; 92 percent support the New Zealand National Maritime Museum; 91 percent support the Stardome Observatory and Planetarium; 83 percent support the Auckland Festival; 90 percent support the National Opera of New Zealand; 90 percent support the Auckland Philharmonia Orchestra; and 92 percent support the Auckland Theatre Company.

This legislation, I believe, is an extension of the partnership philosophy that this Government said was the only way that central government, local government, communities, and businesses could work for the well-being of New Zealand. This legislation is the result of the challenges I have put to Auckland as Associate Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage. I have constantly been told by Aucklanders that taxpayers should fund the Auckland Philharmonia Orchestra—a wonderful orchestra, an absolutely marvellous orchestra, which contributes an enormous amount to the Auckland region.

My challenge to Auckland—and to every area in New Zealand—is to ask why taxpayers should support local and regional facilities, when in many cases our local councils are absolutely niggardly in their response. I have to extract one local council in Auckland from that accusation and say that the Auckland City Council has routinely and generously supported regional institutions, for an awfully long time. I want to assure the House, again, that the Auckland City Council does not see this legislation, which it has supported and will support, as a way of paying less. Indeed, the Auckland City Council is making a commitment to pay more.

The shape and form of Auckland is changing. Auckland is New Zealand’s major international city, and we are seeing massive population increases coming very quickly. For example, in the 1996 census fewer than 2,000 people were living in the central business district, whereas in the last census more than 29,000 people were living there. One of my challenges to Auckland City and the Auckland region is to ask how we are going to change the recreational opportunities and the open-space opportunities. Where are those opportunities for kids who grow up in the central business district, whether they are from Auckland City, Waitakere City, or North Shore City? As sure as change will happen, the changes we are seeing in Auckland City will be replicated around other cities in Auckland. I will be fascinated to see how those cities and how the Auckland region are going to change the way we have traditionally provided opportunities for physical recreation, for mental recreation, and for community engagement.

I am very proud that Auckland is leading the charge in this area. I am very proud to see that the contribution that the Government is making has inspired those organisations to look at what partnership really means.

This legislation, which should go, at the appropriate time, to the Local Government and Environment Committee, will be controversial. But I do not believe that this House has the right to steer away from controversy just because legislation will be unpopular with some of our residents. I have heard from people who are vehemently against this legislation, and I have heard from many, many more who are vehemently in favour of it.

I thank other parties in this House that have indicated their support, particularly the very vocal member opposite, and I thank the National Party for finally coming to the party—very grumpily and with lots of arms being twisted up backs, but it is very nice to see. I particularly want to thank Brian Donnelly from New Zealand First, and the Green Party. Many other people in this House have said that this is legislation that they would actually like to see in their regions. I have received that comment from National Party members as well as from other members.

The Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill, I believe, is the second bill in the wave of legislation that is showing communities standing up for themselves, and asking that we provide clear regional opportunities and education. As some of the inspiring visionaries in Secondary Futures have pointed out, not all education in the future will necessarily take place in schools or tertiary institutions. Places like the Museum of Transport and Technology and the Auckland War Memorial Museum clearly show that there are enormous opportunities to create the next generation of creative thinkers—people who are able to solve problems and who will be able to take New Zealand economically, socially, culturally, and environmentally into a better future. Those people need these facilities now.

I am really proud that these organisations have said: “Let’s help ourselves first.” There is an enormous volunteer contribution. A recent Statistics New Zealand report estimated that throughout the country volunteers give over 270 million hours of unpaid labour, which is worth some $3.5 billion. It is time that local government, with its purposes of regional economic, social, environmental, and cultural well-being, made sure that it provided the services that a modern international city and region needs. I commend this bill to the House.

• Debate interrupted.

Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) : National thought long and hard about the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill. I know that the promoters of the bill are fully aware that we had a very substantial debate in our caucus and, indeed, amongst the members of the National Party across the Auckland region. It is true to say that we were not immediately persuaded, and the reason is that we were aware of the impact on the rates. This is noted to be, in the bill itself, 2 percent within 4 years on the total rates bill. Now, in the last several years, on average, rates have been going up at a rate substantially greater than economic growth, to the point, in fact—and I know New Zealand First goes on about this—that there had to be a rates inquiry, and some serious issues were noted there. So we are, and have been, concerned about the impact of this bill on rates. That is the first point.

The second concern we had was that this legislation is somewhat of an ad hoc approach. I might say, however, that in some respects it is actually a reflection of dysfunctional local government and is a response to that. But, of course, the Government has established, with broad support from across the Parliament, a royal commission on Auckland governance, and I certainly want to see this issue as one of the terms of reference of that royal commission. At most, what we are doing here today is a temporary fix-up that covers the period from 2008 to, perhaps, 2011, when we would expect a different form of regional governance for the wider Auckland community.

There are three particular issues I want to talk about tonight. The first is the process in the bill as to how organisations get included. This is a very serious issue; there is a lot of material in the bill on that. The second issue concerns what organisations should be included. Members would have to say it is a pretty eclectic group at the moment. The third and very important point is the question of who is the best local government organisation to charge the rates. There were choices for that, and the answer in the bill, although it explains why the Auckland Regional Council was not chosen, perhaps ignores the reality that this Parliament has sovereign powers over local government and can make decisions accordingly. We can work out, in Parliament, how best to manage that particular issue.

I want to go to that first issue: on what basis should organisations be included? That comes back to a really fundamental point about local democracy. This bill is effectively a first debenture charge on rates. The very first payment out of rates will be on these organisations. That is the very first impost, because it is legislatively mandated. Other expenditure by local authorities is not legislatively mandated in this way. Yet the bill proposes that an unelected group of people will decide which organisations get funding and the level of funding they should get. Frankly, that is wrong in principle.

Surely it is the fundamental responsibility of elected officials—in local government, in this instance—to decide what the rates should be and how they get spent. I have read a little bit about history. Was this not the issue that the American Revolution was fought on—no taxation without representation? Representation means people voting for their elected officials to decide how they will be taxed. So there clearly has to be a better way than what is proposed in the bill. I will just set that out. The bill proposes an electoral college. People might think: “OK, fair enough.” But that college decides who qualifies and the level of the proposed rate. Those people, as stated in the bill, cannot be elected officials. Actually, it should read the other way around; they should be elected officials. The structure of the bill on this issue is wrong in principle.

We do not get bureaucrats to decide what the Budget of New Zealand shall be. That is the responsibility of the Government of the day, and it is accountable for that. Officials—whether public bureaucrats or, essentially, the grandees of the Auckland region—are there to administer the organisations, not to decide who gets taxed. That is one issue that clearly, if we follow democratic principle, will have to be changed, and Parliament, clearly, can do that.

The second issue I want to talk about is the range of organisations. As the Minister has indicated, they come in categories. The first is the lifesaving organisations, such as the coastguard, surf lifesaving, and the rescue helicopter. I guess this also includes WaterSafe Auckland, which is, arguably, more of an educational organisation. I know for a fact that they have the highest level of support amongst the community—not just in the survey that was undertaken by the proposers of the bill but in my own surveys. They clearly rank way above the other organisations, and it is not surprising that they do. People expect those organisations to be there when they need them, and when they need them they desperately need them. People are prepared to pay some of their rates for that purpose. So they clearly form a category of their own, and I have to say that they were hugely influential in National’s decision to support this bill’s referral to the select committee.

The second category is the cultural organisations. It includes the Auckland Philharmonia Orchestra, the theatre, the maritime museum, and the opera, which is, ironically, noted as the New Zealand Opera—we would have to ask ourselves why it is not being funded by Creative New Zealand, which is, after all, there to fund the central cultural organisations—and the Auckland Festival. It is very much Auckland City - centred, I would have to note.

The third category is what I would call the scientific category, and it includes the observatory. I happen to own a telescope of some substance. I have a bit of a scientific interest. But I am not really sure I would ask the ratepayers to fund that kind of endeavour. The other organisation I put in the scientific category is the zoo. I have to admit that the zoo is deeply loved by people right across the Auckland region. I was not at all surprised that that rated very highly in terms of support.

I do want to note that the Auckland Philharmonia was the origin of this bill. It was the one who initiated it, and then the group got together and expanded the range of organisations. The Auckland Philharmonia is New Zealand’s second leading orchestra. Parliament will have to very, very carefully consider which organisations qualify. We are elected and we are accountable, just as local politicians are. It is our responsibility to sort those out. People must make submissions on that.

The third issue I want to talk about concerns what the best organisation is to undertake rating. The bill proposes a relatively complex system of every territorial local authority getting some sort of a bill—from the electoral college, I guess—and then having to rate all its ratepayers individually. Surely there is a better way. Why do we have the Auckland Regional Council if not to deal with regional issues? It is quite within the power of this Parliament to say: “Actually, we won’t deal with the territorial local authorities on this basis. This is an issue for the Auckland Regional Council. It is administratively far simpler to do that—one set of calculations for every ratepayer and resident in the region.” So those are the three fundamental issues.

I conclude by saying that I understand the intent of the proposers of the bill. A number of these organisations are vital to the whole heart and soul of the city. They are things that make Auckland an international city. They are the sorts of things that people expect an internationally competitive city to be able to provide. They clearly have to be paid for, and that is the question the select committee will have to consider—how best to pay for them, what should be included, and how those decisions should be accounted for democratically.

National is supporting the bill’s referral to the select committee. We will take our responsibilities on that committee very seriously. We will be asking probing and searching questions of the promoters of the bill and the submitters to it. This is a bill where Aucklanders must make their voice known. This Parliament will be acting on that voice, and it is one of our responsibilities, as part of our democratic accountability, to get this right.

Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) : I just want to make reference to the previous speaker, Dr Wayne Mapp, who mentioned New Zealand First’s role in establishing the rates inquiry. I have to say that yes, we do take credit for that. I also have to say that all Dr Mapp’s party would have done around the pretty complex issues of local government revenue raising would be to vote in favour of Rodney Hide’s bill. The outcome of that bill would have seen more road congestion in our cities and raw sewage floating out into the beautiful Waitematā Harbour; I just make reference to that. It was New Zealand First that instigated that report, and I think it is such a quality report that it will become the manual upon which decisions will be made around local revenue raising over the next decade or two. The second thing I mention is Tau Henare’s contribution, which demonstrates a fatal flaw in his character, in that he believes every rumour he hears.

Let us come back to the Auckland Regional Amenities Bill.

Hon Tau Henare: You are going to make a great diplomat, aren’t you?

Hon BRIAN DONNELLY: New Zealand First will be voting for the bill to proceed to the select committee—

Hon Tau Henare: Here’s the great diplomat.

Hon BRIAN DONNELLY: —but we do so—

Hon Tau Henare: Leaving the sinking ship.

Hon BRIAN DONNELLY: This is the man who was complaining before that he could not hear. Now he is making so much noise, no one can hear. A little bit of consistency would be good.

I was about to say that the Hon Judith Tizard might have a bit more persuasive power than Lynne Pillay, because we are voting for this bill, but we could not possibly be persuaded to vote for Lynne Pillay’s one. I think it is recognised that we vote for this bill with severe reservations. New Zealand First has always believed that local government operational decisions should be made as near as possible to the location of the impact of those decisions. Therefore, legislation that establishes through a centrally devised mechanism what a democratically elected council must pay for amenities within its larger region runs contrary to our fundamental philosophy.

Having stated this, however, it is recognised that New Zealand First supported legislation for funding by all councils in the Auckland region of the Museum of Transport and Technology—MOTAT. In recommending such a course of action to the New Zealand First caucus back in 2000, I took myself back to my period of time spent teaching at Henderson Intermediate School. During that time—I mentioned the years in a previous speech; it was a long time ago—the school made very, very full use of the museum as an educational resource. In fact, I think that in the 2 years the students were there, everybody went through the museum as part of a unit. Therefore, it seemed to us at the time unfair that the students at that school could take full advantage of the museum, yet their parents would not be charged anything in local government charges to maintain that entity.

In principle, we supported that particular legislation, and that is the conundrum we face with this bill. At the heart of the matter it would appear that at least two of the activities seeking funding support through this legislation have very strong patronage by citizens of North Shore City, for example. But, in fact, North Shore City pays absolutely nothing for the maintenance of those particular entities. There is justification for asking whether that is really fair. I think that is what this issue is all about.

This bill will create a board that will be able to levy each local council for a proportion of the funds needed by the 11 groups each year. Elected councils will no longer be in full control of their own destinies. For example, it is calculated that the indicative $12.7 million that this bill will cause to be levied in the first year in operation would add $2.51 million to Manukau City’s expenditure, and $2.34 million to that of North Shore City.

The bill creates some strange anomalies. Coastguard Northern Region is captured by the bill, but this service stretches all the way to Cape Reinga. The Whangarei District Council gets to make its own decisions as to what sort of support it gives to the northern coastguard, yet this bill says that the decisions of the councils in Auckland will be predetermined by some central legislation.

Then there is the question of the Auckland Festival. Which council made the decision for this activity to take place? Were representatives of the people of Franklin, for example, involved in that decision? If they were not, why should that council therefore be forced to pay for the festival? I raise some other important questions around that in respect of the Pacific culture festival. Why was that festival never included in any of the research? It seems to have much greater patronage, possibly, than the Auckland arts festival.

It is unfortunate that most of the amenities named in the bill—although we have to note there are provisions for additional entities to be added, and that raises questions in its own right—are basically located in Auckland. For example, Franklin District Council Mayor Mark Ball argues strongly that the Glenbrook Vintage Railway should be included in these regional amenities that are regionally funded. Waitakere argues for the West Wave Waitakere City Aquatic Centre, but that amenity has not even been included in the research. Moreover, the legislation is made considerably less palatable to mayors and councils affected by the fact that the membership of this regional amenities club was determined by an Auckland City Council - appointed panel.

It could be argued that the issues have been fully researched, and certainly some detailed research has been done, but the results are equivocal. For example, only 16 percent of respondents in the 2005 study believe that Opera New Zealand benefits most Aucklanders. The figures for the Auckland Philharmonia Orchestra and the Auckland Theatre Company are 17.5 percent and 19.7 percent respectively; yet all three of these entities make the list. Aotea Centre, with a vote of 67.8 percent on that same question, does not make the cut. When respondents were asked about how different entities should be funded, only 42.2 percent believed that the Auckland Theatre Company should be funded jointly by all councils together. The support for such a funding mechanism for the Aotea Centre was 57.8 percent. The theatre company makes the cut, the Aotea Centre does not, and the Pacific festival does not even get into the research design, at all.

The existence of this legislation demonstrates—and I think we need to take it on board—the woeful state of administrative and decision-making structures affecting the Greater Auckland network of councils. We are aware there is a royal commission of inquiry into Auckland’s governance structure, and we applaud that commission. Of course, the argument has been put up that we should wait for the royal commission report before we look at the issues behind this legislation. We are not swayed by this argument. We believe that public debate will expose flaws in the decision-making processes affecting Greater Auckland. There is no reason why a select committee should not be listening to arguments for and against this bill, through a process of participatory democracy, in parallel with the royal commission inquiry. I think the two will enrich each other.

In Auckland we have the absolutely scandalous situation—I say “scandalous”, and this is where the royal commission, hopefully, will come up with some solutions—where councils are having to use large sums of ratepayers’ money to defend, in the Environment Court, consent decisions they have made, but the cases that are being brought against them are being brought by the Auckland Regional Council, and the cases are being funded also by revenue raised by the same ratepayers. There has to be something wrong with a system like that.

This is the reason why New Zealand First will support this bill being referred to the select committee. We do not believe that in this particular case the voices of the smaller councils have had an opportunity to be heard, and we believe that a select committee process will allow that to happen. New Zealand First members have made it absolutely clear that we give no guarantee that we will support this legislation beyond this stage. We will, however, give a guarantee that we will listen very carefully to the arguments for and against, and make, as we always do, sound and sensible judgments.

SUE BRADFORD (Green) : The Green Party is pleased to support this Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill through its first reading and into the select committee process. It is there that I am sure we will hear submissions from all interested parties, including those who are already out there vehemently opposing this bill. As a North Shore resident I am well aware, for example, of Mayor George Wood’s concerns that this bill will push up rates on the shore, and that it may lessen the support available for local community organisations. Mr Wood has pointed out that his council also helps to fund seven of the 11 amenities named in the bill and does not see why North Shore residents should do any more than they do at present. The Waitakere City Council has also raiseed a number of objections, and I will come to some of those in a moment.

However, I would first like to say that at the heart of the Green Party support—at least, so far—for what is intended here is our belief that, firstly, these organisations do deserve to be supported, secondly, they are all genuinely of regional significance, and, thirdly, it is only fair that the job of paying for their upkeep should be spread across the region and not just be the responsibility of Auckland City, with whatever ad hoc and piecemeal assistance it can muster from other councils. To those who might not be aware, I say the 11 organisations included within the scope of this bill are the Auckland Philharmonia Orchestra, the Auckland Observatory and Planetarium Trust Board, the Auckland Regional Rescue Helicopter Trust, Coast Guard Northern Region, Surf Life Saving Northern Region, WaterSafe Auckland, the Auckland Zoo, the Auckland Festival Trust, the Auckland Theatre Company, New Zealand Opera, and the National Maritime Museum Trust Board. I am sure most Aucklanders who have lived in the city for any length of time will be aware of the critical part these bodies play in the life of the city, and of its residents and visitors. I also know that we are likely to have our own favourites, depending on the interests and prejudices that we hold.

One criticism of the bill—for example, from the Waitakere City Council—is that this is not the right group of amenities that should be eligible for regional funding. I agree that the list is eminently debatable and there could well be other organisations that should be on it. But it is at least a place to start, and Waitakere, like everyone else with an interest, is totally entitled to make strong submissions to the select committee on the nature of this list, and on the processes for future decision-making about who should or should not be included.

Further, the bill itself establishes a funding board that will become the mechanism through which the named amenities—or whichever ones survive or arrive through the parliamentary process—will liaise with the councils on funding plans, levy rates, performance evaluations, and so on. One option that some in the Green Party were keen on was for the Auckland Regional Council to become the funding mechanism for these organisations, as it already plays a clear pan-regional role and has rates-collecting powers. However, given that the Auckland Regional Council itself does not want to take on this job, that is not an option we are able to pursue.

We agree with the proponents of the bill that fundamentally a measure like this is necessary to achieve some kind of long-term security for key regional amenities. I would like to see all these organisations being able to survive and flourish in a situation where they know what their base funding level is going to be ahead of time, and in which they do not have to waste as much effort as they do at present on making multiple funding and planning applications and approaches to all the different councils, on top of all the other funding work they have to do.

There are regional equity issues involved, of course—for example, in the undoubted fact that residents and ratepayers from the Rodney and Franklin districts are unlikely to avail themselves of these organisations to the same extent as residents of the four central territorial local authorities. However, this can be addressed at least in part by ensuring there is a lower differential payment from the outer-ring councils, as I understand is intended.

A further criticism of the bill is that it should be put to one side, pending the outcome of all the work being done at present around Auckland’s regional governance structures. Originally I held that position too, thinking it was common sense, but once I realised how long it was going to be until there was even the possibility of a concrete outcome from the special commission of inquiry on Auckland’s governance, I realised that it was not a good idea to wait, especially as I do not think there are any guarantees that any particular outcome will resolve this problem. This question of funding for regional amenities should certainly be part of the mix of issues for consideration by the special commission on governance, and perhaps in the end any outcomes from the process we are going through in Parliament with this bill will be fed into the special commission process. But I do not think that that should stop us going through the submission and consideration work on this bill. It may end up being a stopgap measure, but if we do the work of fine-tuning and improving it now, that will only help the whole situation in the long run. I do not think any, or all, of the Auckland councils can go on being completely parochial and isolationist in the current environment; Auckland faces too many problems.

It is good to see MPs from across the House coming out in support of this bill, at least at these early stages. I think cross-party and cross-regional goodwill should apply at city level, too. As Brian Rudman so cogently pointed out in one of his recent columns in the New Zealand Herald, all of us should be keen to reduce bureaucratic and administrative costs, to work for equity between different parts of the region, and to provide a secure environment for organisations that serve the needs of our region in so many different ways. I am sure there will be much more that can be done to improve this bill, including looking closely at the list of organisations being supported. The Green Party is keen to help with that work, and I commend the bill to this House.

Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party) : Tēnā koe. I come to this bill knowing that neither the opinions of my constituency nor the opinions of the neighbouring constituency of Te Tai Tokerau have been canvassed about what Auckland-based amenities should reasonably qualify for funding through the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill being debated today. I am wondering whether this is just par for the course—another example of policy prejudice operating for decisions north of the Bombay Hills.

Of course, lack of consultation in Tamaki Makaurau is not a new occurrence. We remember, back in June of this year, when the Waitangi Tribunal reported that consultation by the Crown with iwi was cavalier and unfair, and conducted in a generally uncooperative manner. We read the depressing findings that Ngāti Te Ata, Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, Te Kawerau-a-Maki, Marutūāhu, the Hauraki Māori Trust Board, and Te Taou had been explicitly excluded from the discussions leading to the Tamaki Makaurau settlement.

So, coming to this new bill, which is to address the need for specified amenities in the Auckland region, we are disappointed, but definitely not surprised, to find that there has been no specific consultation with mana whenua. Let us face it: this Government does not value the rights of indigenous people.

Hon Judith Tizard: This is not a Government bill.

Dr PITA SHARPLES: That member is from the Government. This Government sees the rights of indigenous people as incompatible with its policy. This Government opposes the rights of indigenous people to be aspirational—meaning, of course, to have hope or ambition to achieve one’s goal. This Government, in voting against the United Nations Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, voted against the right of tangata whenua to have hope or ambition to achieve for themselves.

So I have to ask: who could possibly think that anyone would dare to have hope that indigenous rights will be protected by this Government? This bill, the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill, is yet another example in which there has been no inclusion and, seemingly, no consideration of Māori facilities and services. The bill has wilfully ignored the views of mana whenua and what they consider the priorities to be for the adequate, sustainable, and secure funding of facilities that promote the arts, education, rescue operations, or community development. In fact, even although I am the member for Tamaki Makaurau—and Māori to boot—which includes most of the region of Auckland, the Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues did not deem it necessary to consult me for comment from mana whenua.

So it falls to us of the Māori Party to speak out here. During the Committee stage of the bill we will be introducing a Supplementary Order Paper to include Māori organisations as specified amenities, and thus as recipients of some of the funding. Two of the proposed organisations we consider worthy of inclusion are the Tamaki Makaurau Senior Kapahaka Society Inc., and the Auckland Regional Outrigger Canoe Association. The Tamaki Makaurau Senior Kapahaka Society has been considered a worthy facility to be included in this bill in order to ensure our high standards of kapahaka in the many adult kapa that exist in Auckland City. We believe also that the intention of this bill to make Auckland a vibrant and an attractive place to live in and visit can only prosper from its inclusion. Our Supplementary Order Paper will provide for support to that society, to help with its annual competitions and festivals, and also to run wānanga to train new leaders and to assist in composition and Māori performing arts.

I have to admit being astounded that the Māori cultural component has not been addressed in this strategy, which is all about enhancing the well-being of this region. Cultural tourism is essential to the creation and shaping of our unique national identity. Quality performances that demonstrate cultural authenticity are a vital context for the international tourism industry, as well as articulating our distinctive identity. In addition, the numerous marae within the Auckland region are actively involved in providing traditional Māori pōwhiri, hospitality, and wānanga services on behalf of the various Government agencies, industry, and all the local authorities. The Tamaki Makaurau Senior Kapahaka Society is a main source of education and skills training in the activities of marae operations.

The other aspect that will be addressed in our amendment is the inclusion of the Auckland Regional Outrigger Canoe Association, another significant resource in developing our young people, in strengthening our whānau, and in enhancing our unique cultural identity in that region. We will be recommending that the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill include provision to ensure that waka ama be resourced for the Auckland City area.

I note with some irony that the key facilities addressed in this bill—the planetarium, the Auckland Philharmonia Orchestra, the Auckland Theatre Company, the New Zealand Opera Ltd, and the Auckland Festival Trust—are institutions that are recognised as being more familiar to middle New Zealand than to the constituency and population of areas such as Māngere, Ōtara, Manurewa, Ōtāhuhu, Te Atatū, Rānui, and Kelston. The information supplied to us by “Together: Creating a better Auckland for everyone”, confirms that only 13 percent of the population of Manukau ever have occasion to use the 11 organisations included in this bill. Yet the proposal is that this same region, through the Manukau City Council, will be expected to bankroll the funding of these organisations, providing 23 percent of the funds for the first year. The same region for which in June this year councillors voted to raise the rates for water charges by 4.9 percent, and wastewater rates by 9.4 percent earlier this year faced the loss of 350 jobs with the closure of the Fisher and Paykel plant in East Tāmaki.

This is the same region in which between 1991 and 2001 rents shot up by a massive 68 percent for Māori households. This is the region that will feel the cost of recent hikes in butter and milk prices more dramatically than most other regions in the country. Yet it is this region that is being charged for almost a quarter of the costs for the Auckland-wide initiative. There is no justification to make the primarily Māori and Pasifika population of Manukau pay to a far greater extent than other regions within the Auckland metropolis, particularly when there is little in the list of 11 organisations that reflects Aotearoa as a part of the Pacific.

There are some serious questions about equity and fairness that need to be addressed at the select committee. We are extremely concerned about the impact of this bill on the region, but we also want Māori and Pasifika populations to benefit should there be an opportunity for them to do so. So we will support this bill going through to a select committee in order to allow the voices of tangata whenua and our Pacific whanaunga to be heard in this Parliament. Thank you.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before I call the next speaker, I say this debate on the first reading comprises six 10-minute speeches. This is the last call, and by agreement it will be split between 5 minutes to Dr Worth and 5 minutes to David Cunliffe.

Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) : What a splendid speech we heard from my colleague Dr Wayne Mapp. It had splendid content, and I particularly liked the allusion he made to the grandees of the Auckland region.

National supports the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill going to the select committee and, as other parties have observed, it is not to be assumed that our consent will necessarily carry any further. But it is significant legislation. I think an interesting starting point is that if Auckland were one city like Brisbane, then this issue would never arise. The philosophical point is that regional facilities should be funded regionally.

As others have said, there is precedent for this particular bill in two pieces of legislation, one a private Act and one a local Act. The core provision of those enacted provisions is to create a differential factor that levies upon the constituent local authorities a funding share. Those constituent local authorities are Rodney District Council, North Shore City Council, Waitakere City Council, Auckland City Council, Manukau City Council, Papakura District Council, and Franklin District Council. Two of those councils, Rodney and Franklin, have the advantage of having a lower differential factor.

I would say there are really four issues that will occupy the time of the select committee. The first I have identified. It is the philosophical issue of the extent to which regional facilities should be funded regionally.

The second issue, which Dr Sharples has made mention of, is that of who should be on this list of organisations. Clearly, there is room for argument there. I certainly support what the member has said in connection with the inclusion of a kapahaka trust, because the Māori cultural aspect has not been addressed in this legislation. In respect of some of the listed parties I can see that there could well be real and genuine argument, but that is an issue for the select committee to look at. That is, then, the second proposition—what is to be in the list.

The third question is what other funding mechanisms might be available to look after these particular entities. They range, obviously, from a type of levy, which this bill contemplates, to the opportunity that local authorities have to borrow funds, perhaps using bond issues. When we were young it was a commonplace for local authorities, certainly in the Auckland area, to raise money by way of bonds. The third possibility is simply by rating. So I would say this is the third issue that needs to be considered. It is interesting that most of the local authorities in the Auckland region have very strong balance sheets, but they are incredibly reluctant to borrow money against the strength of those balance sheets. The select committee needs to consider that issue before it launches into settling a funding mechanism based on the proposed levy arrangement.

The fourth issue, which I will touch upon briefly, is who the contributing authorities should be. They have been identified in the two statutes I earlier made mention of. But there is a case, I would argue, for limiting those contributing catchments in the far north and in the far south.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) : I commend the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill to the House, and seek the House’s support for its referral to the select committee.

While many talk about the need for the kind of cultural amenities that this bill specifies, I think we owe it to Judith Tizard to commend her for the initiative she has taken in putting this bill together and getting the support required to get it to the House. The bill addresses, as our colleague Dr Worth has said, some of the fundamental issues that must be considered in any attempt to fund regional institutions. I would not demur too much at the shopping list of issues he has put forward to the House.

The first issue is whether it is appropriate to have regional funding for regional bodies. I think there is a fair degree of consensus in the House that it is appropriate that regional institutions receive regional funding. It is also appropriate, as he has intimated, that people understand the gap—which is required to be filled—between the revenue streams that are currently available for those regional institutions that are needed, and the funding that is required to be able to provide them, and that the gap might need to be closed by other means. That is a perfectly fair question to ask. The second issue is not just who should be on the list of members of the funding board but how the list should be put together and amended over time, and what governance arrangements are appropriate. That, of course, bears upon questions of consultation, which other members have raised, and which will be important to members from the Auckland region, and important to members from around the country as they seek to get a sense of whether the bill has any value as a precedent for other parts of the country.

Auckland is, to some degree at least, a special case. It is our only super-city. It has a number of subsidiary, full-scale cities, and there is a need for coordination between them. Its future is important to all of New Zealand. We know from international research that an appropriate cultural setting is essential in order to locate the talented, internationally mobile, creative people who drive innovation and economic transformation, as well as build our national identity. So we need to do this in some form.

Without wanting to pre-empt the work of the select committee, I say that this bill is a good start in terms of the criteria that are espoused in it, and in terms of the mechanism involving the electoral college and the other bodies that will administer who is on the list and who comes off it. I know that the select committee will consider a wide range of input. That is perfectly appropriate, and I think the Hon Judith Tizard would support consideration being given to whether the starting list is the final list or whether the criteria need fine-tuning. That is a job for the select committee, and I look forward to the select committee’s report.

I commend this bill to the House. I hope that some west Auckland views will be expressed at the select committee, and we look forward to seeing how they are handled, as well.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Where is west Auckland?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Just west of central Auckland, I say to the Minister from Christchurch—not a city that requires much of a compass bearing, but a lovely city none the less. I have said quite enough; I commend this bill to the House.

Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Labour—Auckland Central) : I thank all members of the House for their contributions on the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill. I would just like to remind the House that it is not a Government bill; it is a private bill that arose from the organisations promoting it. I would say in respect of Dr Pita Sharples that any consultation on decisions about the organisations included was indeed up to them—

Hon Tau Henare: No, it’s up to you. You’re the person putting the bill forward, as well.

Hon JUDITH TIZARD: —and I look forward to their contributions at the select committee. Members who do not understand the nature of a private bill and the history of private bills before Commonwealth parliaments show their ignorance by their interjections.

I say to the House that until 1992 the Auckland Regional Council funded a range of regional organisations. It funded Tourism Auckland, Surf Life Saving New Zealand, and the Auckland Philharmonia Orchestra, and indeed it was how the Commonwealth Games facilities were developed, including the cultural festival. I particularly remember a significant amount of funding going to the waka festival, which included waka ama.

I agree with Dr Sharples that it is sad that there is no regional Māori cultural organisation that could have taken the place of the Auckland Regional Council. I understand that that was one of the reasons why the mechanism—which has been described as being somewhat cumbersome—is in place, so that organisations can come under this bill’s provisions and also leave them.

The public were asked to rate the regionality of various organisations, and the final 11 organisations were a group that met a range of regional criteria. That committee was chaired by Dr Robin Congreve, a major philanthropist who has contributed to a huge range of Auckland and New Zealand organisations.

The financial outcomes of this bill are set down in it. The funding would never go above 2 percent of the ordinary rates take, which would exclude water and waste-water charges. That is partial funding for the organisations alone. The bill recognises that, increasingly, organisations have to employ people for fund-raising and have to first raise their own salaries. That is not good use of regional organisations’ time and money. They should get on with the services they provide, and all councils, including Auckland City Council, would contribute more than at present.

Any new organisations coming into the funding arrangement in the future would have to be accommodated within that 2 percent cap, and, further, this would mean about $20 a year per ratepayer in Auckland. I do not believe that that is too big a price to pay for what are often absolutely crucial organisations. Surf Life Saving New Zealand undertook over 600 rescues on Auckland beaches last year. I believe that we would all be much worse off without that organisation.

When the Museum of Transport and Technology Act was passed, Mr Wood, the present Mayor of North Shore City, talked of the embarrassment of holding on to the coat-tails and purse strings of Auckland City and feeling “a bit of a heel” when he went to events hosted by Auckland City. I say to all mayors, councillors, and candidates that I believe it is time that Auckland City and the Auckland region stood up for the things that make it a complex, challenging, and rewarding place to live in.

I am delighted that these 11 organisations have the capacity, optimism, and vision to bring in this legislation, because it was something that Parliament used to allow regional government to do. It was also this Parliament that took the power away. It is time we put these decisions back on to Auckland, and Auckland citizens are saying that it is time we got on with it.

I thank all the members in the House, including Dr Wayne Mapp and Dr Richard Worth from the National Party, Brian Donnelly from New Zealand First, Sue Bradford from the Greens, Dr Pita Sharples from the Māori Party, and, of course, my colleague the Hon David Cunliffe, who have agreed that this bill should go to a select committee. It is my pleasure and intention, on behalf of those 11 Auckland organisations—and, I believe, on behalf of all Aucklanders and many other New Zealanders, who will look at today as an important day, and the bill as an important step forward for a good society and a good community now and for the future—as soon as the first reading of this bill is passed, to move that the bill be referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee.

• Bill read a first time.

• Bill referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee

KATE WILKINSON (National) : It is my pleasure to stand and take a call in the Committee stage of the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill in relation to clause 1, which, of course, is the title. The title to this bill has changed. It was originally the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill. It has been expanded to deal with flexible working arrangements. Those arrangements are also defined further on in the bill. In relation to an employee—not, interestingly enough, in relation to an employer as well; it is only in relation to an employee—those flexible working arrangements mean flexibility either in terms of hours of work, the days of work, or the place of work at, for example, the employee’s home or place of work.

Flexibility, which is really the integral part of this bill, is important. Flexibility in the workplace is important, and National acknowledges that. We acknowledge that in order for employees to be successful, they need flexibility in their working arrangements. But that does not mean that this needs to be legislated for, and we believe that common sense can prevail.

This bill, the title of which has changed, is, as has been referred to in relation to other bills, a solution looking for a problem—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I am sorry to interrupt the member, but we are debating clause 1. It is very limited; it is just the title.

KATE WILKINSON: The title—correct.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Yes.

KATE WILKINSON: I appreciate that, Madam Chair—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): It is a very limited debate.

KATE WILKINSON: It is a very limited debate. The title is really about the flexibility of those working arrangements. We believe in flexibility, and, although we accept the title of the bill, we do not believe that flexible working arrangements should be, or indeed can be, legislated for.

Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) : The title clause states that the “Act is the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Act”. The original title dealt with “Hours”. Clearly, the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee believed, and many submitters believed, that the title had to be more reflective of the types of things that people should be able to discuss with their employer. After all, this is about making arrangements with an employer and having the right purely to request them.

It is rather amusing to hear that the National Party is in favour of flexible working arrangements, but does not think workers should have a right to request them in law. That is beyond belief. National says it is in favour of flexible working arrangements, but, oh no, no way should workers have the right by law to request those from an employer! We heard a great many submissions on this very good bill from people who gave ample evidence of the need for flexible working arrangements.

Hon Tau Henare: Point of order, Madam Chairperson—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Please be seated. The member was straying a bit there. The title is what we are talking about. The member had been all right up to that point. I am sure that was Tau Henare’s point of order.

Hon MARK GOSCHE: It is just that I have to teach the Opposition how to do this. I have been in title debates many a time, and I do not sit down after 2 minutes like the previous member, who ran out of any sort of thoughts about how to debate the title.

The word “Arrangements” is in the title because people want to be able to discuss arrangements. They may involve flexible working hours or they may involve flexible working days. They may involve all sorts of flexibility that the title seeks to actually describe by replacing the word “Hours” with “Arrangements”. I was just trying to illustrate—for the Opposition—that there is a need for a right in law, which is why we are changing the employment relations legislation. Obviously, we want to describe it in a way such that people will know they can discuss suitable arrangements for work, taking into account the family obligations they have as caregivers for their children, or for their adult parents or relatives who are disabled.

So “Arrangements” can mean all sorts of things. They may in fact assist employers greatly to retain skills that would otherwise be lost from the workplace and from businesses. [Interruption] Bob Clarkson agrees, because he has been on our select committee, and he knows the need for an employer to be able to sit down sensibly with a worker to discuss suitable arrangements that would keep that person in his or her job. That member knows from working in the construction industry how difficult it is to hold on to employees when there are other jobs elsewhere that might pay better. But people might stay in Bob Clarkson’s employment if they can, in fact, get flexible work arrangements.

So “Flexible Working Arrangements” is a very good description of this bill. That is why the select committee decided to change the original description, which just narrowly described “Hours”. We want to give a clear indication to workers out there that they have the right to request changes to the original set of conditions and terms that were laid down in their agreements with their employers when they started out, because their circumstances have changed. People’s circumstances change all the time in life, sometimes expectedly and sometimes unexpectedly.

I cannot imagine why any party in this House would be opposed to this title, or to this bill, or why any party would not like to alter the title. I am looking forward to Dr Wayne Mapp trying to explain why people should be afraid of this title and this bill, which is purely enabling people to arrange things to suit their personal circumstances with their employers, and giving them the right to request that their employers listen to those requests. What is scary about that? Why would anybody be afraid of that? It should not be something that anybody should fear. We will probably get a speech from the National side that this is communism. That is what one of those members said when we came to pass a law that dealt with the rights of workers to be paid for the jobs they do. This is just unbelievable!

Paula Bennett: Is this about the title? Come on!

Hon MARK GOSCHE: There is another National member screeching in the back. She pretends that she knows something about employment. We have yet to see any knowledge come out of her mouth—only vitriol and stupidity.

Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) : There is a fundamental reason why National is opposed to the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill, and it is contained right there in the title clause. The reason is that the title clause refers to “this Act”. Acts are things that are mandatory, where State power is used to force people into arrangements they do not want.

The members on the other side, of course, laugh about that—they laugh about it. They just love State power; that is why they are in the Labour Party. They want oppressive State power whenever they can get it. Their recourse, of course, on every little issue is, in collaboration with the Green Party, to introduce legislation. If something has to be done to give people the ability to talk to each other—that is what this bill is about—they do it with legislation. Well, how about trust? What is wrong with trust? What is wrong with allowing employers and employees to voluntarily speak to each other?

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Come back to the title.

Dr WAYNE MAPP: If we did not have an Act that had mandatory State power, all we would need is the ability for people to talk to each other on a freely negotiated basis. There would be no State coercion and State power, and there would be absolutely no need for this kind of legislation.

Our objection to this legislation is fundamentally because it imposes obligations by law and with sanctions. That does violence to the integrity of the employment contract, which is a freely negotiated arrangement between employer and employee. You know, in the modern marketplace there is actually a balance of power between the parties.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member needs to come back to the title.

Dr WAYNE MAPP: But this Government and this Green Party think the solution—as is clearly set out in clause 1—is to have an Act. Acts are about forcing people to do things they would otherwise not do. That is the fundamental feature of any legislation. Acts force people to do things they would otherwise not do, and they are required to do them only because they will face sanctions—fines, penalties, and other strictures. All of that means that Labour and the Green Party have to have an Act. And that really shows the fundamental difference between that side of the Chamber and this side of the Chamber, does it not?

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Could I just remind the member that we are talking about a title of an Act. Please come back to the title.

Dr WAYNE MAPP: Well, the title of the Act is—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): That is all we are talking about. There is plenty of opportunity—

Dr WAYNE MAPP: —about arrangements that are forced on people by legislation. That is actually what the title is about. It is about forcing arrangements on people through mandatory legislation. I have to be as clear as possible on this. The title clause stated: “This Act is the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Act”, which sounded like a voluntary concept. But “Hours” has been changed to “Arrangements”, and this is the kicker. It is State power and State coercion doing violence to freely negotiated arrangements between employer and employee in the modern employment environment. There actually is some level of equality of bargaining power in the modern, contemporary workforce.

You know, we are not in sweatshops any more. We do not wear sackcloth any more. We are in the 21st century. We do not need this legislation. We do not need an Act. We do not need legislation that forces people into agreements they would otherwise not make. National is very clear on this. We tell people to voluntarily negotiate agreements. In truth, that works virtually all of the time. We do not need an Act, we do not need compulsion, we do not need mandatory sanctions, and we do not need these forced arrangements where employers have no choice but to agree to propositions put up by parties, because if they do not agree, there will be sanctions. Employers do not have the option to simply say no, walk away, and say it does not suit them. That is not a possibility, because they are then forced into negotiation, mediation, and, ultimately, right through to the Employment Court. I see the promoter of the bill shaking her head against that, but that is what is forced in this agreement.

SUE KEDGLEY (Green) : I seek to speak briefly, goaded by the previous speaker Wayne Mapp. First, I would like to say that the reason that we have changed the title of the bill from Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill to Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill is so that we can accommodate people’s requests to change, if they so wish, the location as well as the hours and time of their work. That is the reason why we have sought to change the title of the bill, and it is very simple.

It is extraordinary that the previous speaker said this legislation is using State power to force people into an arrangement they do not want. This is arguably the most light-handed legislation to come before the House in recent years. All that it provides for is the right to request—the right to request—flexible working arrangements. And it is very fair legislation, because not only does it give employees the right to make requests but it protects employers as well. Far from forcing employers to accept requests, it gives them seven or eight grounds to decline them.

The other point I would like to make briefly is that it is extraordinary that the National Party in New Zealand is opposing this most light-handed legislation when its equivalent party, the Conservative Party in England, is one of the leading proponents of flexible working arrangements legislation. The member Kate Wilkinson is shaking her head, but I would like to quote briefly from David Cameron, the leader of the Conservative Party in England—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): You are not speaking to the title.

SUE KEDGLEY: Well, I was just rebutting the comments from the previous speaker. I will quote from David Cameron later, when we come to discuss the substance of the bill. But I say it is extraordinary that the Conservative Party in England embraces such legislation and sees it as a way, a tool, of modernising work places, of helping families to balance the competing demands of paid work and families—that party is embracing such legislation—and the National Party here in New Zealand is opposing something as simple as the right to request flexible working arrangements. We have heard a lot from the National Party about how it is family-friendly and is supporting children, yet it cannot even bring itself to support this bill. Really, that is extraordinary.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): There is plenty of opportunity to discuss the substance of the bill. At the moment we are trying to keep to a debate on the title.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) : Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. Tēnā tātou katoa i te Whare.

Paula Bennett: Kia ora.

HONE HARAWIRA: Kia ora, Paula. I support the proposal to change the title of the bill from Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill to Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill. I would like to ask whether it is possible to backdate the bill to just before I went up to Alice Springs, so that my working conditions and the location of my work could be moved from being in this House, and I could continue with my parliamentary activities in Alice Springs. As an indigenous member of Parliament for Te Tai Tokerau I was doing my best to understand the needs of the indigenous people of the Northern Territory. I think that flexible working arrangements might also be a good idea to ensure that certain other members of this House can spend a lot more time at home and not bother us in this Chamber.

Flexible working arrangements are something I myself have been very keen on in the last 20 years. Although I heard Mr Mapp talking about how they will mean death and destruction for businesses, I know from experience that arrangements allowing people to work in a location that improves their productivity is good for the business. It has been good for business when freely negotiated with the employer and freely agreed upon by the employer. I know from experience that it works.

I just want to say that flexible working arrangements are a step up from flexible working hours. They encourage people to give more to the businesses for which they work if they can see that the businesses are willing to give back. Whoever suggested that the title be changed from flexible working hours to flexible working arrangements must have been somebody incredibly intelligent. It must have been one of the two members here next to me, Pita Sharples or Tariana Turia. It is a very good idea and will enhance the purpose of the bill. Thank you, Madam Chair.

DARIEN FENTON (Labour) : Speaking on the title of the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill, I think that some people have missed the point about the title and about what the amendment was about. Sue Kedgley has pointed it out, but I want to repeat it. When the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee discussed this bill and discussed amending the title we realised that talking just about hours and days of work was not enough. If we are genuinely talking about flexible work then people need to have the right to request flexible work in other places.

Many of us have grown up in the times when we were told that one day in our future, life was going to be very different because technology would take over and we would all work shorter hours and we could work from home and so on. I am still waiting for that day. Certainly, some of the more progressive employers that we see at the higher end of the market recognise that working from home is a productive way of accommodating flexible work needs for employees, often after they have just had a baby and are still at home caring for the child or they have childcare responsibilities—

Hon Ruth Dyson: After they’ve had 14 weeks’ paid parental leave.

DARIEN FENTON: Or when they have had 14 weeks’ paid parental leave, which this Labour-led Government, along with its partners, introduced and the National Party opposed.

Shane Jones: They don’t want parents to be assisted.

DARIEN FENTON: That is right.

We recognise also that there is a growing responsibility for our ageing population. Many, many people are going to have to care for their older adults at home. I have just recently had that experience through my partner, whose father was in hospital and his older mother at home. The responsibilities have fallen on my partner, both for visiting his father in hospital and for having to take care of his older mother. He has a very good employer who allowed him to have flexible arrangements around his working hours—

Paula Bennett: Is this about the title?

DARIEN FENTON: Yes, absolutely—and flexible arrangements that allowed him to do his work from other places. The title is about that.

The difference between arrangements and working hours is very significant. The select committee certainly took that on board in recommending that the word “Hours” in the phrase “Flexible Working Hours” be replaced with the word “Arrangements”, because it is a more accurate description of what the bill is all about and what we are trying to do in introducing modernising legislation, perhaps to catch up with some other countries, and accepting that New Zealand has fallen a little bit further behind other countries in having legislation that enables the right to request flexible arrangements.

The title is all about that right. It is about flexible working arrangements but it is also simply about the right to request them. I know we will get on to that in further debate on the substance of the bill. The title is absolutely about working arrangements, working in other places, being able to request different working hours and part-time or shift work, and about being able to have genuine flexibility that meets an arrangement with employers. “Arrangements” is a modern word that is used in other employment legislation. It fits in with our current employment legislation, which members would see if they took a look at collective arrangements and other things. As such, I think the change in title is entirely appropriate.

Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) : The commencement date, which is what clause 2 of the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill deals with, indicates some time for people to set themselves up to be able to comply with this new legislation. Those who look at the bill will see that the commencement date is 1 July 2008. That is a fair while away for anybody who is concerned about something being sprung on them all of a sudden. [Interruption] Even David Bennett—who was on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee—will be able to read the bill between now and 1 July 2008. Apparently, somewhere along the way he got a law degree. Therefore, we suspect that even he will be able to understand this clause. The clause means that the Act would come into force on 1 July 2008.

Bob Clarkson: Force?

Hon MARK GOSCHE: Yes, that is right. That is how they write the laws nowadays. It may have been different in Bob’s time—when it was written in Old English. The reality is that when an Act gets voted on in Parliament—I say this just for the sake of the Opposition members—it comes into force. It is fairly standard wording, which they would know if they had a look at bills before they came down here and made fools of themselves by showing to everybody their ignorance of how legislation is drafted. David Bennett might be able to explain it to Bob Clarkson, because apparently he has a law degree. “Bob the Builder” does not have a law degree, but even he knows that between now and 1 July 2008 there is ample time for people to prepare themselves for this momentous thing that will descend upon them, as far as the National Party is concerned, when a worker can go to his or her employer to say: “My old mum has had a stroke, and I need to alter my working arrangements with you. Would you like to hear my request?”. Even employers like Bob Clarkson should be able to prepare themselves for a request from an employee who says: “I now have caregiver responsibilities at home for my old mum, who has had a stroke. Would you like to discuss this matter with me, because I have a very reasonable request to put in front of you, as the employer? Would you care to listen to that request?”.

Members on the benches on this side of the Chamber and on the benches in other parts of the Chamber think that is a good thing. They think that is a sensible thing for the law to allow. It is not onerous. It will not be sprung on people by surprise, because this commencement clause states that employers will have until 1 July 2008 to prepare themselves for such requests. I do not seriously think that any member opposite who believes there should be flexible working arrangements would disagree with a time frame of that sort. It gives people plenty of time to get ready for it, to read the bill—

Dr Wayne Mapp: Plenty of time to knuckle under to the coercion.

Hon MARK GOSCHE: Oh, the member says it is coercion. The National Party caucus must be a very strange place to work. Members must not be allowed to request anything of each other in case the person they were requesting it of had to make a decision. Of course, we know that those members cannot make decisions or make up their minds. We know that at least the Tories over in the UK have the brains to figure this one out—this measure is family friendly. National members try to paint themselves as being family friendly, and being all for family values. I am astounded that Gordon Copeland has given his vote to National members to vote against family-friendly legislation like this, which will not come in until 1 July 2008. But he is on flexible working hours tonight! He has sent his proxy vote over to the National Party while he is off talking to the bishop—

Hon Member: What’s going on?

Hon MARK GOSCHE: What is going on is that those members pretend they are for family values, they pretend that they want families to be able to care for sick and elderly relatives and disabled children, or children of any age, basically—

Paula Bennett: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Perhaps we could stick with the commencement clause, as you have been quick to jump on this side when members have strayed from the place that we are up to in the bill, and—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member will be seated. There was no call for the last remark. A lot of members on both sides in the debate on the first clause strayed, and I tried to bring the debate back. The member will withdraw that last remark.

Paula Bennett: I withdraw.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I thank the member. I remind the member who is speaking that this is a debate on the commencement date.

Hon MARK GOSCHE: Yes, and that is why I am stressing that need for a lot of people to read the legislation before the commencement date. Some people can act quickly and some take a long time to come to grips with the law. That is why we amended this legislation, because it used to state, “the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.” Now it states, “1 July 2008.” That is for people who take a long time to get to grips with a law like this—like Ms Bennett over there, who has not read the bill and who has not bothered to understand it, but will get up and proclaim against it as being some terrible form of compulsion. We want to give those people as much time as we can. By 1 July 2008 they should have read the bill, digested it, understood it, and realised that it is eminently sensible legislation, which anybody in this country should be able to cope with by that date.

TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Māori Party) : Tēnā koe, Madam Chairperson. I think that the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill is critically important for families. I am sure that most political parties in this House totally support the right of families to have flexible working hours, and if they do not, then I think the question probably is, why not?

The date for the legislation to come into force is 1 July 2008. That really will give employers and employees time to familiarise themselves with the legislation, and will enable employers to perhaps give considerable thought to how they might assist their employees to have flexible arrangements.

Bob Clarkson: Close down.

TARIANA TURIA: No, I do not think that people need to close down, because there are already employers who have been more than willing to have flexible arrangements. They have had increased productivity as a result of doing that, and we support that.

One of the issues we want to raise tonight is the definition of a child whom one can take flexible working hours to care for. We support Minister Dyson’s amendment on Supplementary Order Paper 148 for that reason.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): That is in clause 6A.

TARIANA TURIA: Sorry, Madam Chairperson, is that in clause 6A?

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): That is in clause 6A.

TARIANA TURIA: So I am not allowed to talk about that now?

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): No. It is coming up; it is the major part of the debate.

TARIANA TURIA: OK. Well, I think the great thing about the legislation is that it promotes flexible working hours. I can speak about this issue because I was a young mother who had to go to work, and I could not get flexible working hours. I know, when I think back to having to leave my children and go to work, that maybe they suffered because of the long hours I had to work as a young mother.

But the commencement date is important, I believe, because of the change that has been made to the day the legislation will come into force. It will now be 1 July 2008. Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) : The purpose clause of the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill gives a bit more meat to the debate than the previous two clauses we have been discussing. As members who have read the bill and understood it will have seen, a significant change has been made in the purpose clause from what was originally quite a narrow group of people who would have been able to qualify. The replacement clause is the new majority clause, and members will note that it is a majority clause because the National Party could not bring itself to support this very sensible proposition.

The clause states: “The purpose of this Act is to insert a new Part 6AA into the principal Act to—(a) provide a statutory right to employees who meet specified criteria as to the period of their employment to request a variation of certain terms and conditions of their working arrangements because they provide care of certain persons; and (b) place certain duties on employers who receive those requests.” How could anybody oppose that? As the author of the bill, Sue Kedgley, said, the clause is very light-handed. It will not bring down the world and it will not bring employers to their knees, as the National Party likes to pretend. The clause provides for the right of employees to request of their employers a variation of certain terms and conditions of their working arrangements.

I was sitting on a select committee the other day and I read some very interesting stuff from Business New Zealand about productivity in this country—the National Party should take note of it. Business New Zealand said that there is a greater need for part-time work and flexible working hours, because they will assist an improvement in productivity.

Where is Dr Lockwood Smith when we need him in this debate? He has been going on and on about improving productivity for so long that I cannot remember when he was not talking about it. We had Business New Zealand in front of the select committee saying that we need to encourage the ability for more workers to have part-time hours and flexible working times. This bill will allow people to request that right from their employers.

Anne Tolley: There is nothing stopping them now.

Hon MARK GOSCHE: If there was nothing stopping them—and we heard all about that during the something like 18 months the bill was with the select committee—we would have seen a massive change in employers’ approach to this bill. We offered them the chance by having an adjournment, if you like, on this bill of 1 whole year.

We asked the employers who came along to the select committee and submitted whether they could show us the educational material they gave to their members of the Employers and Manufacturers Association showing them how to go about making a request, because we had worker after worker, and group after group, coming and saying that it was extraordinarily difficult to get that simple request listened to.

The evidence was from professional women and from workers in supermarkets, factories, and the many, many industries that presented themselves, but every one of them said that they had difficulty in getting their employers to consider their requests. They did not want a law change just for the sake of it; they wanted a law change because of their own personal experience.

We had employers saying they wanted to improve productivity in New Zealand by encouraging flexibility of working arrangements, and they asked for a voluntarist approach. We gave them a year and said: “Go ahead and do it. Show us your stuff.”, but unfortunately they just did not bother. They just paid lip-service to the idea. As a result, we have this very light-handed legislation that asks employers in New Zealand to, please, listen to the requests.

Bob Clarkson: Certainly don’t say please!

Hon MARK GOSCHE: If it does not suit Bob Clarkson, as an employer, there are seven reasons why he can say no, and legitimately say no. What is wrong with that? I ask what is wrong with that. Employees are given the right to request, and employers are given a whole menu of reasons to say: “For this particular reason, I am sorry but I cannot accede to your request.” And those employers would have obeyed the law. They would have listened to requests from people who, after all, have responsibilities in their family home to look after a child, a sick relative, a disabled person, or an older person in need of care.

Dr Wayne Mapp: And people make those arrangements all the time.

Hon MARK GOSCHE: That shows us how heartless National members are. They do not even want to give a worker a right in law to make that request. They say: “Oh, they have a right now.” Well, I ask Dr Mapp how it is that so many people turned up to that select committee and said that that right did not exist in reality. The right might exist in some theoretical legislation that Dr Mapp would dream up, but it ain’t in the reality of the workplace right now.

Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) : I want to set out in principle why National is opposed to the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill. In the 21st century everyone recognises that the modern workplace is dynamic and flexible. There are far fewer of the very large organisations run on very, very hierarchical systems, such as existed in the past when we had old-fashioned manufacturing systems that were very process-orientated. That is not the description of the modern world; it is not the description of the contemporary way of running a business. The Labour Party and the Green Party seem to be wedded to a 19th century approach to industrial relations—that the only way these sorts of things can be fixed up is to have legislation. What I have to say to the Government, and what I have to say to Mr Gosche in particular—because he was really telling a fundamental mistruth before when he implied, in short, that employees do not have the right to ask—is that of course employees have the right to ask. People have the right, as human beings, to ask. That is what negotiation is about. You know, it is more or less as if he had said that employees do not have the right to ask for a wage increase. That is, frankly, fatuous, because of course people negotiate. That has been the case for quite some time, and is increasingly the case in the modern, flexible workforce.

In the old days, people felt they had to work for one employer for maybe 20 or 30 years. They felt somewhat locked in. That is not the contemporary experience. People change jobs much more frequently. Employers know that, and they know they have to be competitive when they are negotiating with employees, not just at the time of the initial contract but through the life of the contract. That is why, in truth—and this was heard in the select committee because I was there and the evidence was clear—there are a great range of flexible arrangements freely negotiated between employer and employee. So when National says that we do not need the legislation, we are saying that we do not need a set of rules that essentially end up with court involvement, because if a person makes a request and the employer says that for one of these seven reasons it is not possible, the next step is litigation. That is what we are against.

Sue Kedgley: Mediation.

Dr WAYNE MAPP: Well, actually the Employment Relations Authority does not have just a mediation role.

I am not going to get up and say that this bill is going to be the great disaster of all time for the New Zealand workplace. Clearly, people will cope with it. But it will be just one of those extra little points of legislation that crushes productivity in the New Zealand workforce, and that is a crucially important point. One of the most serious challenges that New Zealand faces is declining productivity, and we face it in context with Australia and the United States. Do members know that neither of those jurisdictions have this kind of legislation, and both those jurisdictions are more prosperous than New Zealand? They have more effective working relationships, they have higher incomes, and New Zealanders are choosing to go—in particular, to Australia. One of the fundamental differences why Australia and the United States have fundamentally faster growth rates than European countries—and this legislation is based on a European model—is that they have a lighter-handed regulatory approach to workplace law. That is simply a basic fact. It cannot be contested by members on the other side. They would have to argue against the actual facts and then do something we cannot do in this House, which would be to tell a lie. I presume they do not want to tell a lie, so they essentially avoid the truth and suggest that people cannot ask to have flexible working arrangements. But of course people can ask, and if it does not work out, they will make their own arrangements. Employers know that if they lose someone it might be damn difficult to get someone else, so they are going to be in a dialogue.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) : The previous speaker was Wayne Mapp, in case someone is listening at the moment. I think the last time Wayne Mapp took an interest in labour relations matters he had a bill before this House that said that any employer could sack any worker for any reason that employer liked, without disclosing the reason why. Could anyone imagine what it would be like for a person in his or her first job to lose that job and not know why? What sort of future would a young person have, finding that he or she was sacked totally unjustifiably and having no one to look after the situation? [Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Please be seated. The member will stand, withdraw, and apologise for that remark.

Dr Wayne Mapp: I withdraw and apologise.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: The point I am trying to make here is that there are many examples where people want a bit of flexibility, but are nervous of asking for it. If Wayne Mapp was the Minister of Labour, woe betide anyone who asked for flexibility within his or her first 3 months of employment. People who said they wanted flexibility would be down the road. The other thing is that if people waited until the 3 months were past and said they would like some flexibility now, the employers would ask why they did not mention it before, and why they were not able to have a conversation about it right at the start. Of course, Wayne Mapp would not care about that, because at the end of the day people would be able to be sacked for no reason whatsoever. So I do not think Dr Wayne Mapp is very credible on this issue, at all.

I am absolutely appalled that the National Party, on women’s suffrage day, is using the kinds of arguments that, if they had been successful in 1893, would mean we still would not have the vote today. That is the stupidity of the arguments presented by the National Party.

Let us say that those arguments had been used before the Equal Pay Act was passed in 1972. If the current members of the National Party had been responsible for that Act, we would not have had it. They would have been able to stand up in the House and say that any woman had the legal right to ask for equal pay with the men she worked with, and that would have been true—every woman had the legal right to ask for equal pay. Did women have equal pay? Did any of them ask for equal pay? No. Why did they not ask for equal pay? Because the request did not have to be considered at all. So we had to pass a law in this Parliament to bring about equal pay for exactly the same work. There used to be national awards—appropriately named—in this country that had one pay rate for men and one pay rate for women, one for male clerks and one for female clerks. Richard Worth is nodding his head; he remembers the good old days. That is the way they like it over in the National Party—women knowing their place. What a surprise that that has not changed at all over on the National side of the Chamber!

The law had to change in order to bring about a difference. But have we got equal pay today? The law says that we should have equal pay, but have we? There is this stubborn pay gap of 12 percent, and we know that in some areas it is actually far greater. Can anyone on that side of the Chamber explain to me why, 5 years down the track, after qualifying in exactly the same degree, with exactly the same qualification and the same level of degree, women are earning 20 percent less than their male counterparts in the legal profession? Law is one of the classic examples where women are paid, on average, much less overall than men. It is true in the accountancy profession as well. Guess what? These wonderful professions, one of which I am a proud member—I am a lawyer myself—have also managed to develop gender segregation. Certain work within the law firms gets handed out to the women, and certain work within the accountancy firms gets handed out to the women, too.

Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party) : Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. I have my tiki on, so I would like to speak to the purpose of the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill. Its purpose is really about the family, and the family is a bit more extensive than the bill allows for, so that is what the Māori Party would like to talk about. I see a new parliamentary party that is starting up has said it is going to be the first real voice for the family. That is really interesting, because I think every party has the interests of the family at its heart, deep down. We support the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee’s amendment to extend the coverage of the bill beyond young children under 5 years of age and disabled children up to 18 years of age, and to cover other whānau members, such as partners, parents, grandparents, siblings, and mokopuna.

We are not just saying this; it is part of our culture. You see, we have one word for “auntie” and it is the same word as that for “mum”. Whae, whaea, whaene, kōkā—it is the same word. We have the same word for “cousin” that we have for “brother” and the same word for “cousin” that we have for “sister”. So our sisters are tuahine whether they are our first cousins or our real sisters. And the situation is similar for mokopuna. That is a reality of the way we live. I have several mokopuna who live with me. They are not all my own grandchildren but are my sister’s grandchildren and my grandchildren, and that situation is not covered here. So not only do we support the widening of Minister Dyson’s amendment that extends the provision but we request that consideration be given to the Māori concept of whānau, as well as broadening the provision generally.

In terms of what Dr Mapp said about the bill, we know about the 90-day wonder, and that is the whole point. Sometimes we have to give security and support to people in situations, the work situation in particular, and that is why the bill is necessary. All it does is to give the opportunity for discussion to take place about more flexible arrangements. Accordingly, it has to place some responsibility back on the employer. So the Māori Party at this stage certainly supports this bill.

I would just like to quote from the report Pūao-te-ata-tū, which was provided by an advisory group, the ministerial advisory committee on a Māori perspective for the then Department of Social Welfare, way back in 1988. We all know about John Rangihau, who was the architect of that report: It states: “The Maori child is not to be viewed in isolation, or even as part of nuclear family, but as a member of a wider kin group or hapu community that has traditionally exercised responsibility for the child’s care and placement. The technique, in the Committee’s opinion, must be to reaffirm the hapu bonds”—that is the wider group—“and capitalise on the traditional strengths of the wider group.”

So the customary preference for the children to be maintained within the context of the hapū is something that is of great value to the Māori Party. We are pleased to support the amendment that adds further flexibility to the flexibility already there in the bill. Kia ora.

KATE WILKINSON (National) : I am delighted to take a call in relation to this part of the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill. Most people, including those in the National Party, support the concept of flexibility, and we appreciate that quality flexible work is important. We know there is a general consensus that flexible work is important to all New Zealanders, not just to parents and not just to people with caring responsibilities. Quality flexible work is important for individuals, organisations, families, and communities. But flexible working legislation such as this bill is an oxymoron. We support flexibility—of course we do—but employees already have an existing right, under the provisions for good faith in the Employment Relations Act, to ask for flexible working arrangements. This legislation is simply unnecessary. We value flexibility. We know that forward-looking businesses also value employees for the contribution they bring to the business, not just for the hours they work. We value giving people choice about how they work if they deliver the same outputs, because that is good for business. But what we do not agree with is legislation instead of education.

The author of this bill is about to herald to us that the example to follow is the legislation in the United Kingdom. Comparisons, I have to warn members, although sometimes useful, can also be misleading. If we look at the UK report, we see there are significant differences and significant discrepancies. The official departmental report itself referred to methodological inconsistencies in the UK research, stating that the results are not necessarily supported by research, and that there was no accurate pre-legislation baseline of information to measure from. It further advised that the current set of labour market and economic and social conditions in New Zealand did not present a close enough match to any of the countries considered in the analysis for that country’s solution. So it is very dangerous to simply mimic the UK legislation and say it will work in New Zealand.

In fact, if we look at the UK report, we will see some of the cautions in that report. It said that small firms may find it more difficult to accommodate some types of requests than larger firms in similar lines of work. It states: “It is possible that carers who are not covered by the legislation and whose employers do not open flexible working opportunities to other staff may resent employees that are entitled to make a request … This could lead to lower morale amongst these staff in the workplace.” This bill is limited in that respect.

There is a compliance cost to employers. In the UK it has been estimated that on average it will take 2 hours of employee time and 3 hours of management time to process a request that is dealt with formally. At the moment it would take less than half that time to deal with a request informally under the provisions of good faith that already exist in our employment relations legislation. The proposal involves costs to businesses—implementation costs and procedural costs—and we will deal with those. These matters can go as far as the Supreme Court, so it is not a light-handed measure, it is not non-onerous, and there are costs associated with accommodating such requests when they are accepted.

Mr Gosche, who is very, very vocal, talked about productivity. He talked about how flexible working arrangements such as these and strictly legislated flexible working arrangements will improve and enhance productivity. But he himself should read the UK report, which said that overall only 44 percent of firms have experienced a net positive impact on productivity as a result of the flexible working arrangements that have been legislated for there. Fewer than half the firms have experienced a positive impact on productivity.

We have had mention of Suffrage Day; we knew it would come up. It is a day that we do celebrate and one that we certainly should celebrate.

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) : I have listened to the debate thus far with interest. I have listened particularly to the National Party because as far as I can determine it is the only party in this House that is opposing the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill. ACT, which I thought would be opposing the legislation, is working flexible hours already, so, clearly, that party agrees with it.

Kate Wilkinson made a point. She said that currently all employees have the right to ask for flexible working hours, or something along those lines. That is true. I do not think anybody is arguing that it is not. But she is missing the whole point of the purpose clause. There is an obligation in the purpose clause for the employer to consider that request seriously. That is the whole guts of this bill. The employee can already make a request, but under this bill the employer will have to consider it seriously. I compliment Sue Kedgley on being so amenable and so flexible on this bill. I have tried to work it out, and I think just about every clause has been put under the microscope, and has been either struck out and replaced, or revamped in some way, and Sue has taken it all on board.

That leads me to compliment the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, of which I was a member, on its determination and dedication to get the bill right. The purpose clause as introduced was totally unacceptable. It was too restrictive concerning whom it applied to—employees caring for children under 5 years and disabled children up to 18 years. It was bureaucratic, insomuch as employers effectively could not refuse to change employees’ working hours, or had very limited reasons for doing so. And it was very limited in whom it would apply to, insomuch as the arrangement had to be permanent, as I understand it. The select committee changed all that, with Sue Kedgley’s agreement, and, dare I say, blessing. That made the purpose clause much more acceptable.

New Zealand First opposed the bill as introduced, but we are big enough, ugly enough, and tough enough to say that the bill before us now has got it right. That is what National members should be doing. They should not sit over there and say that all employers are fair-minded people from the word go. In fact, Wayne Mapp said the reverse. He said that far fewer employers were wedded to 19th century thinking. I think that is what he said, and that implies that some employers would dismiss any informal request from an employee who wanted to look after a person who is ill—dismiss it without any regard at all. That is an admission by Wayne Mapp; I see he is nodding his head. The sole reason we need this bill is that some employers would deny such a request come what may.

This bill is about the right of a person who looks after another person to request flexible working arrangements so that the person can do that. I cannot see anything wrong with that. Some employers have written to me and to my party, implying almost that the world will come to an end if this bill is passed. That is not so. This is very, dare I say it, innocuous legislation. It fits into New Zealanders’ mainstream thinking. New Zealand is a compassionate country. It is a country filled with compassionate people. If there is anything sad about this bill, it is that we have to produce it because some people are not as considerate and compassionate as they perhaps should be. Some people do not value their staff as they should.

It is somewhat hypocritical of the National Party to oppose this bill, because National members work under—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Would the member please withdraw that comment.

PETER BROWN: I withdraw the comment. It is somewhat unusual for National members to oppose this bill, because National members, as we all do, work under the Standing Orders of this House. We do not negotiate them; we sit around the table and agree to them. They allow the 48 National members to have 12 members away from the House at any one time, for any reason whatsoever, with no questions asked—unless the whip asks a question. Nobody else in the House can question where those members are. The National Party is allowed to have 12 members away, and their votes still count. I want to prevail upon National members. I know many of them personally. I know Wayne Mapp; he has been here the same length of time as me.

Russell Fairbrother: You have learnt a lot, haven’t you?

PETER BROWN: I thank the member. I ask the National Party to rethink its position. We are not bringing the world to an end with this bill. We are producing legislation that is fair-minded, in the interests of, firstly, people who are looking after other people, and, secondly, people who are being cared for. We are not making any great imposition on employers. We are giving employers until 1 July 2008 to come to terms with this. I think the National Party should rethink its position. I think this bill should go through this House, supported by everybody here, with perhaps the exception of ACT, which is not present tonight, and Gordon Copeland, who is not present, either. I know I should not say who is present and who is not, but he is giving his vote by proxy. This is very reasonable legislation, and New Zealand First supports it and supports the purpose clause.

DARIEN FENTON (Labour) : In speaking to the purpose clause of this Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill, I say there has been some incredible discussion here tonight, particularly from the Opposition benches. It reminds me why it is really, really important that we have parties in this House that understand the realities of the working lives of many New Zealanders. It is not all wonderful like the honourable Wayne Mapp would have us believe.

As other people have said, this legislation is very, very light-handed stuff. It does not say that workers have a statutory right to demand flexible hours. It does not even say that they have the right to negotiate flexible hours. It says that they have the right to ask, and that the employer must respond. I think Peter Brown made a very good point on the difference between this legislation, and the right under the Employment Relations Act to be responded to with good faith. My question to Opposition members is that if they are saying we have current rights, and if they are objecting to this bill on the basis that a case can, allegedly, go all the way to the Supreme Court, how do they think the current rights under the Employment Relations Act are done?

Kate Wilkinson: Why do we need this?

DARIEN FENTON: Well, I would not be hiring Ms Wilkinson as a lawyer, quite frankly. That could end up in the Employment Court, as well.

I thought it was really, really interesting to hear Mr Mapp, and I know he has never got over his 90-day bill—

Russell Fairbrother: Not interesting to hear, Ms Fenton.

DARIEN FENTON: Well, no, it was, because—

Russell Fairbrother: Never interesting—

DARIEN FENTON: No, because that member does not understand the reality of the world. He really does not. He was saying that everyone has the right to negotiate. Well, that is really nice; people have got the right to ask, and they just have to up and say to the boss they would like a pay increase. Did that member not listen to the people from the Hospitality Association? They came along and said they are a very democratic organisation, and if people want flexible hours and they say no, those people go down the road. That is democracy, and that is how it works for lots and lots of people. The fact is that there is a lot stopping people from asking for flexible working hours at the moment; if there was not, then we would see it much more widespread than it currently is.

The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee was certainly told by many, many people that although some employers were responding, many were not. There is very, very uneven application of work-life balance after 5 or 10 years of talking about it and all the nice things that we hear, and the various awards that employers get for showing that they recognise work-life balance in their employment. But it is often found in the big end of town—it is the lawyers, it is the high-paid workers, and so on. For example, I do not know any cleaners in the country who have been able to ask their employer for flexible working hours and have been granted them. The cleaners in this workplace—Parliament—have to work at night, and if they said to their boss: “Oh well, my husband has to work during the day, so I’d like to do the cleaning during the day.”, do members think that under the current legislation they would have a prayer? I challenge the National members to stay up one night and talk to the cleaners about what life is really like for them, and what it is like working for a contractor. I challenge them.

Sue Moroney: The cleaners don’t deserve having to talk to the National Party.

DARIEN FENTON: That is true. I think that the whole purpose and driving force behind this bill is the fact that we are working long hours. Wayne Mapp talked about productivity in Australia and the USA. I point out to him, as I did in my second reading speech, that Australia and the USA actually have working time regulation. They have it, we do not, and that is part of our problem. I certainly said that in my second reading speech, and we need to do something about it. Those countries have working time regulation so that people who work more than 40 hours a week have to be paid overtime. That is even the case for people earning the minimum wage in the UK—if they work more than 40 hours a week they get paid overtime. That does not happen here, and that is why people end up working very, very long hours to make ends meet. They work very long and unsafe hours.

This bill is being welcomed across the board, apart from the National Party. I notice that the New Zealand Nurses Organisation is saying that many of its members in the nursing workforce have extensive family commitments that make working rigid rosters difficult, and that that often deters them from re-entering the nursing profession once they have children. What we hear in this House day after day is whinging from the other side of the House about the lack of professional health workers, and how we cannot attract them, and so on. Here is an opportunity for the National members to show they understand.

• Progress reported.

• Report adopted.