Hon MITA RIRINUI (Minister of State) on behalf of theMinister responsible for Climate Change Issues: I move, That the Climate Change Response Amendment Bill be now read a second time. In doing so, I would like to thank the Commerce Committee for its consideration of this bill, as well as those who provided submissions and representations to the committee.

The committee’s consideration resulted in a number of enhancements to the existing provisions of the bill. The bill deals with two issues in particular. Firstly, it amends the Climate Change Response Act 2002 to refine the functions of the New Zealand Emissions Unit Registry in respect of greenhouse gases. New Zealand is required to develop and maintain a registry to ensure the accurate accounting of emissions units. Emissions units are defined as the various types of units specified under the Kyoto Protocol. The principal Act allows for only the Crown to hold accounts in the registry, and therefore to hold emissions units. The bill allows individuals to hold accounts in the registry and to trade in emissions units.

So at one level the bill advances mechanisms that will be able to be used in many sectors in the future. For example, the National Party recently said that it is in favour of a “cap and trade” scheme for the electricity generation sector, which would cap the volume of allowable greenhouse gas emissions in the electricity generation sector, and require generators to purchase emissions units for increases in emissions. The first part of the bill sets out some of the mechanisms to achieve that.

The select committee made amendments to clauses 5 and 13, and also to clause 23, in order to better protect the property rights and interests of unit and account holders. The committee has amended the bill by providing more specific criteria and circumstances—in which the powers of the Minister of Finance may be exercised to direct units to be transferred—under which the Ministers responsible for the registry may provide a direction to the registrar to close a holding account. The committee has amended clause 23, which limits the bar to bringing an action against the Crown or the registrar to cases where an inaccuracy in the unit register has arisen, by adding that this bar applies only to situations where the Crown has reasonably relied on external information providers. The Government supports these amendments, because they provide better transparency and specificity in order to better protect the rights of unit and account holders.

Secondly, the bill enables the establishment of the Permanent Forest Sink Initiative. Part 2 relates to the development of a mechanism that will allow landowners to access the value of carbon sequestration on land through the establishment of forest sink covenants. This Permanent Forest Sink Initiative provides a business and land-management opportunity, which will be created by New Zealand in this climate change policy. The bill will facilitate the initiative, which has the potential to attract many millions of dollars of investment into the New Zealand economy. It will enable landowners to make better economic and environmental use of their land, particularly isolated and erosion-prone land that is currently marginal, for uses such as agriculture and conventional production forestry. A significant part of that land is owned by Māori, who stand to gain from the passage of this legislation, which is why the Māori Party supported the first reading of the bill. The Permanent Forest Sink Initiative provides a world-leading opportunity for landowners to establish forests and obtain Kyoto-compliant carbon credits. There is a further incentive by which afforestation owners will be able to harvest a portion of timber from their forests.

The Permanent Forest Sink Initiative will operate through contracts registered against land titles that specify the rights and obligations of the Crown and landowners. Not only does the Permanent Forest Sink Initiative provide economic and environmental opportunities for landowners but it also provides opportunity for domestic and international firms to better manage their greenhouse gas emissions by establishing new forests. Many dividends will flow to New Zealand as a result. Landowners will be able to reap better economic returns through a diversified income stream. From a climate change perspective, new forests planted under the Permanent Forest Sink Initiative are likely also to replace stock numbers on marginal land, thereby reducing some greenhouse gas emissions from the agriculture sector.

The Permanent Forest Sink Initiative will also facilitate improved flood protection and catchment management, especially in areas where climate change might lead to increased impacts from extreme weather events. It will also aid in the protection of biodiversity, and enhance the quality of our rivers and streams.

I support the committee’s recommended amendments to address the issues raised at the select committee, because they clarify the intent of the bill. They also clarify the relationship between the Resource Management Act, the existing provisions in the Forests Act, and the amendments to the Forests Act. The legislation allows for the possibility of the Permanent Forest Sink Initiative to operate on Crown land. The Government intends to move amendments through a Supplementary Order Paper, during the Committee of the whole House. Those amendments will address a number of issues, including those raised by the Legislation Advisory Committee.

I wish to thank again the members of the select committee for their work on this bill, and also those who made submissions to the select committee. I commend the Climate Change Response Amendment Bill to the House.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) : The mess around this bill is very symptomatic of the whole mess the Government has around climate change policy. This is the first bill, since the election, that we have had on what has been described as one of the most important issues facing humanity, and the Government has rolled out Minister No. 25 in the Government to give the second reading speech on it. Why was that speech not given by the Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues? Why was it not given by the Minister for the Environment, or by the Associate Minister? I will tell the House why. It is because the Government is deeply embarrassed by the mess and vacuum in climate change policy.

Steve Chadwick: Rubbish!

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member opposite might explain this to me—that is, the member who is going out of Parliament; I think the member for Rotorua is one of ones that, in the latest poll, is dead.

I ask the Minister to explain this to me. This bill was introduced on 3 May last year. When it was introduced, the Government said there was a big rush—that we had to set a very tight timetable for the Commerce Committee to report back. Submissions were limited to only 3 weeks. It was a truncated select committee process, and the bill was reported back to the House on 28 July 2005. The Government said the bill was so urgent that it had to be reported back to the House immediately. What has the Government done for 15 months on this bill? Maybe the Minister can explain that. Why, after the urgency and the truncated select committee process, did the bill then sit on the bottom of the Order Paper for 15 months? Well, the Government’s climate change—

Darren Hughes: The member is missing the point, again.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Can Mr Hughes explain that? Can he answer a simple question? Why, when the select committee process was truncated because there was such a rush, has this bill sat on the Order Paper for 15 months at the bottom of the list? The member does not want to answer that question, because he—

Darren Hughes: Absolute nonsense! Don’t talk politics; talk climate change.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: It is not absolute nonsense, at all. The member says we should talk about climate change policy. Well, I am very keen to, because the Government’s policy is as big a farce as is the process.

Let us look at this Government’s record on climate change policy. Even the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment says there is a vacuum in Government climate change policy. This Government has been in office for 7 years, yet we have no idea what this country should be doing in respect of climate change. Let us look at some of the Government’s track record. It came out with an animal emissions levy. Do members remember that? It was abandoned. The Government had a policy that New Zealand should sign up to and ratify the Kyoto Protocol, because we would make $500 million. Do members remember that? Well, it is now acknowledged in the Government’s books, after some dirty, sneaky manoeuvres during the election campaign when the Government tried to hide this, that rather than making hundreds of millions of dollars, the poor old New Zealand taxpayer will be up for $500 million - plus as a consequence of this Government’s aborted mess around climate change policy.

Then we had the carbon tax. Do members remember that? The Government announced that the answer to climate change was the carbon tax. At the last election Labour members said that—[Interruption] I am coming to that, I tell the member. I know that member belongs to a Government that has no policy. We have one, and I want to talk about it. What Labour said about the carbon tax is quite extraordinary. When it was dumped, the Minister in charge of it said that he was dumping it because it was not going to work. We had been telling him that for 12 months. There was no evidence at all that a carbon tax of $15 a tonne would have any effect on the amount of petroleum that was used or burnt. But we had a different message from the Prime Minister. She said that the policy was dumped because the Government could not get the numbers for it in the House. So today I ask the Minister in charge of the bill, who is right: David Parker or the Prime Minister? The silence is absolutely deafening. He has no idea. The reality is that Labour made a mess of that.

Let us go through some of the other things. We had a policy of tendering projects to reduce emissions. What happened to that? It was cancelled. We had a policy on reducing waste and improving energy efficiency; it was a real ripper. The Government spent $100 million on its Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy, and after 6 years energy efficiency had become worse. That reminds me of the Department of Corrections. I know that the Minister who moved the second reading of this bill has no climate change responsibilities at all, but he is the Associate Minister of Corrections. The Department of Corrections had a programme called Straight Thinking, and the people who did Straight Thinking had a higher reoffending rate than those who did not do the programme. The Government’s Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy has been as big a disaster as that.

I ask the Government this. After 7 years in office, and after all the rhetoric about greenhouse gas emissions, why have New Zealand’s emissions gone up at three times the rate of the United States’ and four times the rate of Australia’s? We get all these speeches from Labour members damning the United States and George Bush about climate change, yet they are four times worse than that.

Sue Moroney: The member is making it up.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member says I am making it up. Let me ask this question: is the Government making up its submissions and its reporting to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change? Oh, it is not. Let me give members the figures. The figures that were submitted to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change show that New Zealand’s emissions have gone up at four times the rate of the United States’ and three times the rate of Australia’s. Every Government member should be hiding his or her head in shame. In fact, I challenge Government members to tell me a country, any country in the world, whose emissions have gone up by more than New Zealand’s under this Government. Can they tell me any country that has done worse than New Zealand—any country whose emissions have gone up by more than New Zealand’s? They are silent because they simply do not know. There is no country that has done that.

In the wake of that policy vacuum, we in the National Party have said it is time some leadership was provided around the issue of climate change. We produced a blue-green vision for New Zealand that provides a very sensible approach to the issue of climate change. One of the great tragedies is that during Labour’s period in Government, the amount of electricity produced from coal has trebled. We all know that coal is the least friendly way in which to generate electricity, so I would love a Labour member to explain why the biggest growth in electricity production in New Zealand, where we have all sorts of renewable energy options—geothermal, wind, and hydro generation—has come from the dirtiest source, which is coal. National has said that a sensible way forward is a tradable emissions permit system; that is what we have put on the table. We have said we should apply that system to the electricity sector first, and that we will recognise the people who plant forests to absorb carbon, because that is good for the environment. Planting forests reduces erosion and absorbs carbon out of the atmosphere, and that provision is one of the more useful provisions in this bill.

National will be supporting the second reading of this bill. It does provide for a sensible system of tradable emissions permits, and that is where we want to go forward. But I really believe that the Government has to fill the vacuum that exists in climate change policy. Where the Government is at, at the moment, is a disgrace. It is an embarrassment for New Zealand. It is a disgrace for a country that wants to stand on its environmental credentials. New Zealand has had one Government policy disaster after another. I would like to know why it is that the Minister—whether it is the Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues, the Minister for the Environment, or even the Associate Minister for the Environment—has not been prepared to contribute to this debate and move the second reading of this bill.

The final point I make is to ask why the Government truncated the select committee process, reducing it to only a few weeks last year and saying that this bill was urgent, yet has allowed the bill to sit on the Order Paper for 15 months. That just shows the depth of the Government’s indecision—the depth of the vacuum—and the lack of policy from this Government around this very, very important issue. So the Government has stuffed up. Leadership must be left to National in order to clean up the mess. We are happy to provide that leadership. The sooner the Government calls it quits, the better it will be. Let some real solutions be put forward with regard to climate change.

STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) : I might disappoint the Opposition member by not being the Minister for the Environment or the Associate Minister, but I want to say a few things about this bill today. Labour has a very large caucus that is very interested in green issues. I acknowledge that Dr Nick Smith does appear to be almost a lone voice over there in National. He is trying to convince his colleagues to adopt a more blue-green policy platform. I acknowledge that, and I think it is very creditable. But it is a bit rich, when the Opposition refused to sign up to Kyoto, to carp and whimper in the House about New Zealand’s commitment to Kyoto and talk about a vacuum. The member opposite knows why we had to change our mechanism at the end of last year. He also knows that the election got in the way of what is a very good Climate Change Response Amendment Bill.

I am very glad that the Nats are now starting to come around the table to discuss a sensible way forward for carbon trading and climate change. The poor Nats—and this is the fundamental problem—have never had a big group in their caucus to sign up to green issues, so they have never been very keen to do anything about those issues. Carbon trading was Dr Smith’s position at the conference held just this month—in October. But his own leader—when we talk about leadership—Dr Brash, said: “As you will be aware, the document is just a discussion document at this stage. It’s not set in concrete, and the proposals of the National Party, we’re not saying we’re going to do them. We’re not saying we’re going to do A, B, and C.” That is what the Leader of the Opposition said when Dr Smith stood up, with a good document and a way forward. Dr Smith was not supported by his leader this very month, when he went to that conference. So where does that leave the Opposition? Slightly embarrassed, I would have to say, at seeing the Leader of the Opposition wearing his parka and out on a forest walk. That is not his natural territory for walking the talk, but he had a go and it was a good look.

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

STEVE CHADWICK: We have been talking about the Government’s commitment to address climate change and the acceptance of the reality of climate change. In this House there definitely is quite a moveable feast in terms of a commitment to address climate change. Government members accept that climate change is real and that we have to do something about it. We also accept that there were some delays in reporting this bill back to the House because an election got in the way of that. Dr Brash, the Leader of the Opposition—for a little longer, but spring is in the air, and climate change is certainly showing us some weather pattern changes here that are very real and cannot be ignored—is still not convinced of the science on climate change. I think the Hon Dr Nick Smith has a little more work to do to convince his leader—his leader until the end of spring, probably—that climate change is real and we need to do something about it.

This bill amends the Climate Change Response Act 2002. With the amendments that have come through, it certainly refines the functions of New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions registry unit. What is important in this bill is that it sets up that registry. The Government is committed to the Kyoto policies on emissions, as defined under the Kyoto Protocol. We have never swayed from that. National members have said that they are in favour of a “cap and trade” scheme for the electricity generation sector, in which greenhouse emissions are capped and generators are required to purchase units for increases in emissions. That is quite a reasonable approach, but I think National has to be just a little more patient.

This bill is part of a subset of climate change announcements that have begun to roll out from Minister David Parker’s office, and I think we will see a lot more work come out on this issue. It is important work, it is detailed work, and it is work that we need the support of the Green Party and other parties on, to actually bind us all into it, because it is very important for New Zealand’s future.

The bill enables the establishment of a Permanent Forest Sink Initiative. That is to be applauded, and it has been well received by the forestry sector. It will attract investment and enable better economic and environmental use of land. That has been a great concern for those farmers who have difficult aspects on their farms that they cannot farm satisfactorily, and who would like to put that marginal land into forestry and also get some returns for doing that. That is very, very important. We will find more and more tracts of our land that have been difficult to farm become afforested, with this Permanent Forest Sink Initiative.

The Permanent Forest Sink Initiative provides us with a world-leading opportunity, and I am sure everybody in this House agrees that we need to do something like it. We felt great despair when we saw how readily people would convert good forestry land into agricultural land because of the exchange rate. That was not good around our area, where we have seen the conversion of forest into farm land. It is also not good, environmentally, for our lakes and for sustainable lake water management. As a further incentive for afforestation, owners will be able to harvest a proportion of the timber from their forests. The initiative will operate through contracts, registered against land titles, that specify the rights and obligations of both the Crown and the landowner. Not only does the Permanent Forest Sink Initiative provide economic and environmental opportunities for landowners but also it provides opportunities for domestic and international firms to better manage their greenhouse gas emissions, by establishing new forests. With our commitment to the Kyoto Protocol, that is what we need to see in this country.

Lots of dividends will flow as a result of the Permanent Forest Sink Initiative. Landowners will get an economic stream that is quite diversified. At the moment they are often locked into either forestry or agriculture. From a climate change perspective, the new forests that are planted under the Permanent Forest Sink Initiative are also likely to reduce stock numbers on marginal land, thereby reducing some of the greenhouse gas emissions from stock. I think that is very important. It is what this Government tried to achieve last year when it brought in the emissions policy that was so soundly panned by the Opposition.

I think this is a great bill. It is one of a subset of policy announcements that will come out from this Government, which is working really well, with the support of the Green Party and our coalition partners. Those announcements will aggregate up—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: The member does not believe that.

STEVE CHADWICK: Yes, I do believe in the Permanent Forest Sink Initiative. I think it is fantastic, and I am pleased to support this bill.

ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) : I am happy to make a contribution on the Climate Change Response Amendment Bill. National believes that this is an area where we have had considerable mixed messages and impractical solutions from the Government. We will be supporting this legislation, but we give notice that we want to bring in a number of amendments at the Committee stage. Let me talk, firstly, about the mixed messages, then I will spend some time addressing the impracticalities of the proposed solutions, and then I will talk about some of the decisions that could flow from that.

Government members say we must enact this legislation, yet New Zealand’s own performance on climate change under the stewardship of the Labour-led coalition has been such that we are performing much worse than the other countries that the Government has held up to ridicule, such as Australia and the USA. In fact, we are doing three and four times worse than those other countries.

Then there is our internal policy. We have a Government that says yes, it buys into the issue of climate change, and that it is an important and a crucial issue. I agree that climate change is an issue that we have to deal with. If members look at this bill, they will see some provisions around protecting forestry rights, as a way forward—and yes, we all acknowledge the sequestration of greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide, into forestry sinks. But the Government’s biggest farmer, Landcorp, has cleared 25,000 hectares in the central North Island. The process has not stopped there. Other speculators have said there is an opportunity, with the leadership the Government has given, to redevelop land for dairying or other land uses. So that process does not stop just with the 25,000 hectares cleared by Landcorp. That is the first big mixed message from the Government.

Then there is the Government’s performance in renewable energy. What has it done? It has quashed the Dobson dam project, Project Aqua, the Tuapeka dam project, and any other opportunity that has been out there. Yes, there has been a little investment in wind farms, but not a great lot. There has been no real promotion of other forms of renewable energy. The Government has stepped up production from coal-fired generators, so we have gone into thermal energy, whereby we are adding to the greenhouse gas emissions. That is the second mixed message from the Government.

At the same time as the Government is making noises internationally that climate change is an important issue, the Prime Minister came to Southland and said that New Zealand’s future needs for electricity would be met by burning lignite in Southland. Well, I have news for her: I do not think that is a good idea, and the people of Southland have some other ideas about what lignite can be used for in Southland, as well. Again, that is another indication that the Government does not have a plan that will actually deliver what it is promising to the international community.

I have just come from a presentation by Rio Tinto Aluminium—well, the Tīwai Point plant is still called New Zealand Aluminium Smelters. I just look at what that company has done. It is a working example of what can happen with the right kind of stimulus. The company has not had that from the Government; it has got it from its international connections and the need to produce a product that shows it is doing something. In the last 15 years it has reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent. Yes, the company is the biggest producer of greenhouse gases in New Zealand. I do not know what the figure is, but I would suggest that it is around 15 to 18 percent of all greenhouse gases in New Zealand. So the Government will get its beady eye on that plant and say: “Ha, ha! We need to close this down, and then we will look good internationally.” Because we have had so many other mixed messages, I do not trust the Government not to be thinking about doing that, particularly because that would release some electricity to be available for other users, and the Government has not had a plan for electricity.

It is a matter of fact that out of the aluminium smelter at Tīwai Point, for every tonne of aluminium that is produced there are two tonnes of greenhouse gases. The Government would say that that is horrible—that it is terrible—but I ask members to wait. You see, when we pick up and settle ourselves into a Kyoto agreement that excludes China, India, Singapore, the Philippines, and wherever else, that is the nonsense and the mixed message this Government is giving. The Tīwai Point smelter produces 2 tonnes of greenhouse gases per tonne of aluminium produced, but there are 18, or maybe now 19, smelters in China—I do not know the number, because it is a growing feast—and over there nine tonnes of greenhouse gases are produced for every tonne of aluminium produced. So if we closed the aluminium smelter at Bluff, an idea that I am sure has crossed the fertile mind of the Labour Government in order to look good internationally, the slack will be picked up by a much dirtier, less progressive smelter somewhere in China.

We should be supporting aluminium production, and I will tell members why we should. Even though two tonnes of greenhouse gases are produced for every tonne of aluminium produced at Tīwai Point, the payback in the transport industry is multiplied by 20. If we put 100 kilograms of aluminium into a vehicle and reduce its weight so that in its lifetime the payback is times 20, we will get two tonnes back for every 100 kilograms. So one tonne of aluminium will give back 20 tonnes when invested in the transport industry.

We must stop giving mixed messages to New Zealand. The year 2005 was the worst-ever year for forestry in New Zealand. The Government has been talking of sequestration into forest carbon banks, and for the first time in perhaps four or five decades, there has been less planting than harvesting.

Jacqui Dean: 46 years.

ERIC ROY: There we go—nearly 50 years. Why has that happened? It has happened because of mixed messages. The Government has said it will not give people a future they can bank on, so people are out there harvesting their trees. They are cutting their trees down, and there is no incentive for them to replant. I know, and I accept, that there is changing land use and that other viabilities are out there, but the key factor has been that there is no blueprint we can hold on to. There is a mixed—

Colin King: No leadership.

ERIC ROY: The member for Kaikoura, Colin King, is absolutely right. There is no leadership. All that we are getting is mixed messages, and we say that this bill gives us a variety of mixed messages.

We had the Government look at our forests and at what members thought were our carbon credits. The Government said: “Ha, ha! There are about 500 million, or 600 million—terrific! That will look good on the balance sheet; that will let us buy another election; we can add that to the $11.5 billion. Oh, boy, what can we buy with that?”. But I say: “Ah, ha—it is a billion-dollar bungle.”, because in actual fact the calculation was wrong. That is another reason why buying into that Kyoto thing was a very, very silly idea.

Darren Hughes: Rubbish!

ERIC ROY: Well, absolute rubbish! The member is quite right; it was a rubbish thing to do. It was rubbish for all sorts of reasons. The member wants to create a world bureaucracy, but who will get the job of counting the carbon credits in Russia? Russia said that, hey, it was not entering into the Kyoto Protocol, then it went and recalculated its number to get 36 billion tonnes, or some colossal number, so that it could then go out and say that it was in credit. So of course it signed the protocol. But who is going to go and audit that process?

We need to have clear messages about a way forward. Yes, I accept, and National accepts, that we should be doing our part—

Darren Hughes: This speech is not a clear message.

ERIC ROY: I know the member is interested; I can see him paying attention. But we actually need to have a clear message. We need to have something that is not a placebo or platitude, but is something that will actually deliver. Kyoto is nothing more than a talkfest. We need to take responsibility here, we need to work in international forums, and we need to include countries like China, India, Singapore, and the Philippines, which are not now included.

Darren Hughes: Will the member answer a question?

ERIC ROY: Unless the member accepts that responsibility, anything we do here will shift dirty industries to countries that are not included in that protocol.

We say that this bill is a small step, but we want the Government to give some leadership on climate change. We are keen to be involved, and we want to see a practical solution. We want to see some clarity around the rules that are out there, and we want to see New Zealand buying into a future that is sustainable.

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) : I always listen intently to the member who has just resumed his seat, because he normally makes some very good comments. But he laboured on, talking about mixed messages and unclear messages, for quite some time, so I want to ask the House how this is for a mixed message, taken from the commentary on the bill. The heading is “Opposition members view (New Zealand First, New Zealand National, and ACT New Zealand)”, and the paragraph states: “Opposition members oppose this bill on the grounds that New Zealand should not be implementing the Kyoto Protocol ahead of our major trading partners.”

Eric Roy: That’s right—absolutely right. We haven’t shifted from that.

PETER BROWN: Well, I thought that the member—

Eric Roy: No, we want to give leadership; we want to get the solution.

PETER BROWN: I do not want to get into a debate with the member, but I could have sworn he said that he was going to support the bill, when here it says he is not. New Zealand First will oppose this bill, for two principal reasons. The first reason is that we do not believe we should be ahead of our trading partners in terms of the Kyoto Protocol. Secondly—and we have fuelled this quite a lot this evening—there are people in New Zealand who are worried witless about climate change. I have to say that that is unnecessarily so.

When it comes to greenhouse gas emissions in this country, 50 percent comes from farming. The honourable member who has just spoken did not refer to that, at all, and he is a farmer. The other 50 percent comes largely from energy plants, and whatever. But on a global scale New Zealand greenhouse gases do not register. They are a fraction of a percent. If we want to address the issue of climate change—and I am talking “we” now as internationally—then we have to target the big guys: the Americans, the Chinese, the Indians, the Brits, and the Europeans. On a per capita basis, when it comes to energy and carbon dioxide, our emissions are very moderate. When we take our population of only 4 million people, that is only a very modest amount of greenhouse gases.

But if we look at China, for example, on a per capita basis we see a very low emission per person, but 100 times more greenhouse gases are produced than by New Zealand. Australia produces double, on a per capita basis, to that of this country. In total it is ten times more than this country, but that is from a population only five times greater than ours. If we look at the USA, we see it produces double in terms of greenhouse gases on a per capita basis, but it emits 152 times the greenhouse gas emissions of this country. Britain is about the same on a per capita basis, but it produces 15 times the amount New Zealand emits. And so it goes on, and some of those countries generate power from nuclear plants.

Coal gets a lot of blame for the production of greenhouse gases. Coal in this country produces about 8 percent of our electricity. In China, coal produces 78 percent. In Australia, the figure is 79 percent, and in America it is 50 percent. An article in the Dominion Post sometime last week reported that the Americans are building coal-fired power stations like nothing on earth. By the year 2030, 57 percent of their power will be generated by coal-fired power stations.

The solution to the problem of greenhouse gases, when it comes to coal, is not banning coal-fired power stations, because obviously countries are not doing that. China is building them. India is building them. Australia is building them. The solution is exactly what John Howard said only 2 days ago in a radio interview: “A major part of the Government’s policy on climate change is to accelerate the development of new technologies which reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the use of fossil fuels.” That will be the solution to greenhouse gas emissions, particularly from coal.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: What if it doesn’t work?

PETER BROWN: The member says: “What if it doesn’t work?”. These countries are pouring billions of dollars into it. Australia is pouring in millions of dollars and the Yanks, the Americans, are pouring in billions of dollars. For the member’s information, Genesis Energy and Solid Energy New Zealand Ltd are spending significant sums of money in Australia, on research there, to address the problems of coal. I am told that the theory works now but that the cost of implementing has to be brought down. I say to the honourable member that I tend to believe that the scientists, the people who are working on the issue full time, day in, day out, will have it addressed in the foreseeable future.

We must not lose sight of the fact that the average New Zealander is exceedingly concerned about climate change, and New Zealand First is concerned about climate change. But let me say this, and let me say it as clearly as I possibly can: there is nothing in this country that we can do as average citizens that will address the problem in any meaningful way, at all. The problem lies elsewhere. We can do whatever anybody thinks we ought to do to address the problem—we can plant trees and goodness knows what—but it will not do anything meaningfully on a worldwide basis. This is a worldwide problem.

I say to the honourable member who is sitting close by me that scientists tell me that trees absorb carbon dioxide. They also tell me that pasture, with a predetermined level of topsoil, will also do that. So we can absorb almost as much, if not as much, carbon dioxide by putting land into pasture. I am not a scientist, but I believe what scientists tell me, and I know that this information comes from dedicated people who are spending their lives addressing the problem.

New Zealand First opposes this bill. We oppose it not because we are anti-environment or anti-climate change, but because we want to keep the debate alive. We know that many, many New Zealanders are being scared witless by the rhetoric in this House. They are hearing statements—and we have heard a few of them this afternoon and this evening—that make them feel guilty about putting on their lights, let alone their one-bar electric heaters.

This is a problem that will be solved in time, but it will be solved in time by technology—not by New Zealanders planting trees. We should plant trees to address erosion problems, so let us do that. But we should not fool ourselves that by planting thousands of trees we will solve the world’s climate change problem. If the member thinks that then she might as well think that the pig that is flying around here is real. New Zealand First—

Gordon Copeland: It’s a world problem.

PETER BROWN: That is exactly what I have just been saying—.

Gordon Copeland: We’re only a tiny little planet.

PETER BROWN: We are a tiny little player—and I appreciate the echo coming from behind—on the world scene, and we cannot do anything to address the problem in a meaningful way. All we are doing, to a very large extent, is scaring witless the average New Zealander who is concerned about this issue. We in New Zealand First say that we should get this matter into perspective. If we want to address climate change on a global basis, then to a very large extent it will come down to the Americans. It will come down to the Brits, the Europeans, the Chinese, the Indians, and the Australians. New Zealand’s attempt to help the problem by growing trees and what have you will have negligible, if any, effect whatsoever on climate change. New Zealand First will be opposing this bill.

JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) : We have just heard the modern equivalent of the old colonial attitude that one Englishman is worth 20 Chinamen. We are told that a country that has a quarter of the world’s people is the problem, when that country is producing far less than a quarter of the world’s emissions. We are told that somehow it is the Chinese who are at fault and that New Zealanders are OK, even though one New Zealander produces about eight times the emissions of one Chinese. Well, I do not subscribe to that old colonial mentality. I actually think that every human being on this earth has equal entitlement to the atmosphere, and that is the basis on which we should set climate policy.

It is true that New Zealand cannot solve this one on its own. Neither can the United States nor any one country. The United States produces about 25 percent of the world’s emissions. If that stopped and the rest of the world kept going, we would still be in deep trouble. China produces less than that. If China stopped and the rest of the world kept going, we would still be in deep trouble. We have to play our part or we will not have any credibility when we try to negotiate on the world scene for a collective agreement to improve the climate.

The Greens strongly support the Permanent Forest Sink Initiative. This second reading is hugely overdue. We were very hopeful that the bill would be passed before the election and be in force by now. I want to look at what has happened since this bill was reported back in, I believe, July last year. That is 15 months or so ago. The signs that climate change is accelerating have become incontrovertible. The climate-deniers no longer have a case. Whether we are talking about the ice-melt, the slowing of the Gulf Stream, Greenland and the glaciers, the acidification of the oceans attacking the base of the marine food chain—creatures that need calcium to form their shells—or methane being released from the warming of the Tundra, the signs of accelerating climate change are so worrying that many scientists say we are at a tipping point. If we do not do something very urgently it will be too late to prevent a runaway effect. That is one lot of things that has happened.

Also, in July last year both major parties had policies on climate change. Now, neither does. Well, that is progress is it not? Last July National had a policy of being opposed to the Kyoto Protocol and to doing anything about it, and it used every opportunity in the House to question whether climate change was real and to deny that New Zealand should be taking action because of these so-called trading partners. Labour had a policy package that contained some flaws but, nevertheless, some strengths too. That was abandoned in December.

National now has a consultation document out, and I congratulate it on that. I also congratulate it on taking climate change seriously now and seeking a policy solution. That is good. It is also generally supporting a “cap and trade” system. OK, that is something we can work with. Labour is developing a policy on climate change, which we will see some time soon. But neither of those parties has policy in place, unlike the Greens, who have had policy for a very long time and developed it further in March this year.

The other thing that has happened since July last year is that New Zealand’s forests have shrunk for the first time in many decades. We are now clearing more forests than we are planting, and that is a tragedy in terms of the climate. It is a tragedy in terms of many land-use issues, as well. It is partly because of the policy limbo we have been in for a while and it is partly because of the exchange rate, wood prices, and very high dairy prices, and so on. But there are huge clearances under way now, where forests are going and the land is being converted to livestock farming. One can see the smoke as one stands on the top of Maungatautere mountain in the Waikato, unable to see to the south because of the pall of smoke rising from the burning slashed forests.

Clearance for livestock, of course, gives us a double whammy. Not only do we lose the carbon stored in the forest—we lose our sink—but when animals are put on the land the methane emissions increase. So we are getting both less sink and more sources.

We urgently need to recognise the carbon that the foresters store in their forests and make some payment for that. But not by simply handing credits, with the obligations that they entail for guarantees forever into the future, to companies with short-term thinking.

The Permanent Forest Sink Initiative is a good programme. We are told that it will require the maintenance of a continuous canopy—no clear-felling—and that there will be a limited opportunity for harvesting for high-quality timber, which is another benefit to the economy. There will then, of course, be other benefits. Afforestation on steeper land, which will be the cheapest land to afforest permanently, will reduce erosion, improve water quality, reduce flooding and improve flood control, and it will provide a habitat for biodiversity that does not disappear every 25 years with clear-felling. Those are huge environmental benefits.

I have met a number of forestry companies that are just waiting for this bill to go through in order to take up the commercial opportunities that it offers. Some of them want to plant native production forests with continuous canopy; that is something that we badly need. Some of them want to plant high-value exotics for the same purpose; that will be a very welcome diversification from pine. Some of them are forming exciting new partnerships with Māori using Māori land with Māori benefiting economically from that, and with the forestry company providing the expertise and the investment capital. Those are very productive partnerships. I know of one with NgātiPorou; I am sure that there are others.

Climate change will accelerate extreme weather events. It will make the flooding worse. It will make the erosion worse. It will make the droughts worse. We need to plant that steep land urgently for a whole raft of reasons in addition to carbon storage. I said earlier that we are told that the rules will entail all these things. But there is actually nothing in the bill at all about what the requirements will be on foresters planting these permanent sinks. I am sure that the policy is firm at the moment and that the regulations that will be written under the bill will express that policy. But what happens in the future? What happens if we have a Government that decides to weaken the rules, that no longer requires long-term guarantees, and says “Oh, yes you can clear fell if you like as long as you plant.”, and all the rest of it? It is a little bit worrying that the bill leaves it all to regulations because they are so easy to change without coming back to Parliament.

I comment, finally, on the statement we hear so often in this House that we should not ratify the Kyoto ahead of our trading partners. Let us really be clear about what this means. The Bonn Agreement in 1995, which set up the basis for negotiating Kyoto, said that all countries can be party to it. Only OECD countries will take targets to limit their carbon for the first period, because it is the OECD countries whose emissions have overwhelmingly caused the climate change we are all now experiencing. The developing countries still need to feed their people. They will look at taking binding commitments when the OECD countries have acted. China, India, and the rest are waiting to see what the developed world does in the first commitment period. If, by 2012, none of us have met our commitments, do not expect them to come into a future agreement. The only way we will get those countries in is to demonstrate that we can do it, and to develop the technology to help them do it as well.

So what is happening? There was never any rort about China not being part of the agreement. China participates in clean development mechanisms. China is putting in more photovoltaics than any other country in the world. It is manufacturing more photovoltaics than any other country in the world. It is taking clean energy and energy efficiency extremely seriously, and its emissions would be a great deal worse by now if it had not done that. So let us give China a break. Let us say that they have got a right to feed their people and have jobs for their people. They have a quarter of the world’s people.

Let us show what we can do with all the benefits of our developed technology, our developed economies, the capital we have, and lead the way, then those other countries will follow. The only OECD countries that have not ratified are the United States and Australia. Yes, we trade with them. We also trade in a major way with Europe who are taking this more seriously than any other block of countries. So let us be real. Let us play our part in the OECD, of which we are a part, to show a way forward for the world that the other countries can follow.

TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Māori Party) :Tēnā koe. Tēnātātou katoa. We are slowly, but surely, killing Ranginui and Papatūānuku, our parents, and we must quickly reverse the situation and care for them. The Climate Change Response Amendment Bill provides us with a mechanism by which we can do this.

The year 2005 has been reported as the first year that ice in the Arctic continued to melt well into the end of September, resulting in the biggest annual melt since records began. Aotearoa suffered two major floods in Gisborne in as many months, and we have endured major flooding at home in Whanganui and the Rangitikei, and in the Bay of Plenty. We have had droughts in Hawke’s Bay, Otago, Marlborough, and Tasman. Human activity resulting in emissions of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, have significantly added to, or even produced, this effect over the last century.

And so it is, in this context, that the Māori Party welcomes the return to this House of the Climate Change Response Amendment Bill. The bill sets up two mechanisms. It allows individuals to trade in emission units and it establishes a mechanism to allow landowners to access the value of carbon in their forests. In essence this means the Crown is able to give tradable emission units in exchange for carbon. The Crown will devolve tradable carbon emission units equal to the carbon contained in permanent forest sinks.

So what does this mean in practice? Just over a month ago Christchurch City Council approved the sale of carbon credits to British Gas. The sale hit all the papers, as it was New Zealand’s first overseas carbon credit sale to a private sector buyer and would generate more than $3 million in revenue for the council over 5 years between 2008 and 2012.

This is where the Māori Party turns to the genuine progress index for some guidance. The Māori Party has advocated for a genuine progress index as providing a measure of comprehensive, sustainable, and inclusive advancement. The index distinguishes between positive contributions to progress, for example, a reduction in greenhouse gas, and negative activity, such as industrial pollution. The genuine progress index enables nations and communities to look critically and systematically at the massive challenges in front of us with climate change, over-population, over-consumption, wastage, peak oil, oil depletion, and GDP growth. And this is the crunch issue, because although it is, of course, positive that the allocation of carbon credits recognises the progress made in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the challenge lies in the thinking behind the dealing being done.

The Māori Party has consistently supported the philosophy behind carbon tax and carbon credits as a key means of providing incentives to industry polluters to control and reduce their emissions. But the value of exchanging carbon credits—trading them off with other countries, countries that are polluting the environment—seems to be rather confused logic. Let us trace back the history to this issue.

In December 2004 the Government awarded the Christchurch City Council 200,000 carbon credits, or emission reduction units, for the capture and transport of methane gas from the closed Burwood Landfill to Queen Elizabeth II Park Stadium Sports Centre and Fun Park to heat and power the sports facility. All praise where praise is due: it is a great initiative that this project will turn waste into a resource through the capture and use of landfill gas that might have otherwise have escaped into the environment, contributing to climate change.

Landfills generate methane, one of the worst greenhouse gases, as organic matter decomposes. So when methane is burnt, it is converted to carbon dioxide, which reduces its climate impact by a factor of 20:1. In some pretty impressive number crunching by the council, we are told that by capturing the methane gas in this way the carbon emissions avoided by this project equal 10,900 cars taken off the road each year. Now 11,000 cars cannot be sneered at. We absolutely commend the council on being awarded these credits, made through the Projects to Reduce Emissions programme, and support it as part of an innovative approach taken at local government level in meeting commitments under the Kyoto Protocol.

But where we do have some questions is in relation to the ethical issue around the trade off of carbon credits to a private sector buyer. Under the genuine progress index one could not count the fact that credits have been traded for commercial gain as an example of genuine progress. For what changes? The industry—British Gas, in this example—is still polluting, but now it has credits up its sleeve by a commercial transaction with New Zealand. It does not seem to add up.

Of course, there are many other players that are supportive of schemes created in this bill. We know, for instance, that NgātiPorouWhānui Forests support the concepts, as they and other iwi can make income by trading the carbon credits accumulated in their forest assets. They could also create further employment by planting trees they otherwise would not have planted, as it would have been uneconomic to do so. It also means that they can plant trees that previously would not have returned an immediate income stream as quickly as exotic forests. It may mean the return of the slower growing indigenous species and the creation of nurseries specialising in indigenous tree species. They can make money before the harvesting of the forests. It is a totally new income stream. They can also make money by planting permanent and indigenous forests on isolated or erodible land not suitable for farming and harvesting forestry.

But the Māori Party would ask: is not the whole issue of climate change about reducing greenhouse gas emissions? If industry polluters are able to purchase carbon credits to offset their polluting emissions yet still do not make any efforts to reduce emissions, does not the actual problem still remain?

The question of how New Zealand deals with climate change is an issue of hot debate on which we have many outstanding questions, and we look to the Committee stage for their resolution. We know that Māori have repeatedly called for action to preserve the ecosystem and protect land use, and we know that the Crown has been challenged to look at the impact of climate change policy on the claim currently before the Waitangi Tribunal—Wai 262. The particular concern put forward was that any policy that promotes land use change must fully understand the impact on indigenous flora and fauna, including unintended consequences. We also know that the Waitangi Tribunal has been looking into the issue of carbon credit allocation when Crown-owned forests are growing on Māori land.

We will be looking to see whether the Climate Change Response Amendment Bill provides for Māori-owned forests and carbon credits and whether it provides responsibly for Crown forests on Māori land. We will want to see, during the Committee stage, evidence that demonstrates how tangata whenua have been involved.

Climate change affects us all. It is time to look critically at the way in which we measure the national accounts and look for a more realistic and telling tale of the progress achieved in our nation. Our total wellbeing, our health, and our sustenance are dependent on the prosperity of the whole national environment—the big picture. Climate change is part of that big picture and carbon credits reward and recognise steps to protect our environment. To this end we support the further development of this bill with a view to genuine progress in Aotearoa.

GORDON COPELAND (United Future) : I rise with considerable pleasure to take a call on behalf of United Future on the Climate Change Response Amendment Bill. Like Jeanette Fitzsimons, I regret that it has taken so long for the bill to come to the House for its second reading. I had imagined that after the 2005 election this bill would have been well up the Order Paper, but I guess it is better late than never, and I am pleased to see that at last it has got to this point.

I come to this debate after viewing An Inconvenient Truth late in the afternoon on the Sunday of Labour Weekend. By the way, Labour Weekend in Wellington was the wettest Labour Weekend we have had in a decade. We have had the wettest winter on record, followed by the wettest spring on record. We have had landslips in the greater Wellington region in areas that have been without landslips for years. Anybody who doubts the reality of climate change would only have to have spent the last few months in Wellington to see that something quite dramatic has happened to our weather patterns.

Let me say at the beginning of this speech that United Future fully accepts the reality of climate change. The evidence is there all around us and, therefore, we are committed as a party to ensuring that New Zealand pulls its weight in addressing the issues that affect all of the people on this planet at this point in time. If I were to signal one thing that New Zealand is perhaps uniquely placed to do in its response to climate change, it would be to plant trees. We are actually quite a large country geographically. We are bigger than the United Kingdom and Ireland put together, and we have millions of hectares of wasteland that at the moment are basically barren. Therefore, United Future has had a policy for some time that we should incentivise the planting of trees as the singular greatest contribution New Zealand can make to address climate change.

I am absolutely staggered and disappointed to find that New Zealand First will vote against the bill tonight. I well remember the leader of New Zealand First, Winston Peters, saying that the nation needs to plant 1 billion trees. When he said that I said “Right on!”, yet tonight New Zealand First has come to the House and said that it will vote against this bill, which completely baffles me.

It is clear that trees have become a method whereby carbon can be sequestered. Carbon sequestration has the ability to make a huge difference to world climate, and growing trees is one of the very best ways of doing that. I should also point out that it is important to have a sustainable harvesting regime in place for those trees, and this bill allows a sustainable harvesting regime to kick in after 35 years. The reason for that is that once a tree matures and in fact starts to rot, as old trees do, then that tree is no longer absorbing carbon. So the wise thing to do is to cut that tree down at the point where it has optimised the absorption of carbon, and to plant a new tree to start that process over again. Conceptually, we can see that continuing on until the end of time. It is a good thing to do. Therefore, United Future thoroughly supports the Permanent Forest Sink Initiative that is at the heart of this bill.

I should say, in relation to overly mature trees, that one of the things that should probably be revisited in this country is the decision not to allow any sustainable harvesting of the West Coast beech forests. I know that that is a sensitive issue, but the fact is that if we wanted to get really serious about carbon change we would turn back the clock and let many of those rotten old trees get cut down. Many of those trees are completely rotten right down the middle, and they are sequestering no carbon, at all. If we could cut them down on a sustainable basis and put in a new tree, we would be making a significant difference. I know that that is a controversial suggestion, but if we are to get serious about it and follow the science, that is exactly the policy outcome that would come about.

The way in which this bill will work will be by the devolution of tradable carbon emission units from the Crown down to land owners. It will include situations where the Crown itself is a land owner, and where it makes sense for the Crown to make its Crown-owned wastelands available to people who want to plant millions of trees on those lands. That would be a wonderful thing to see, and in United Future we call it a “no regrets policy”. We would have many more trees. It would increase biodiversity, address climate change, and absorb nitrate from the soil. Really, there is just no downside.

Planting trees would also make our country much more beautiful. Funnily enough, although New Zealand prides itself on being a forested country, our rural countryside is actually denuded of trees compared with England, for example. It is very noticeable that there are many more trees in the countryside there than there are here, so planting trees is something that needs to happen, and it is a very good thing to do. United Future also has a policy specifically of planting trees around all our rivers and lakes on their marginal strips, where again that can contribute to climate change, to biodiversity, to absorbing nitrate, and to improving the quality of the water in our rivers and lakes.

There is huge scope in New Zealand for planting trees on erosion-prone land. Recently I flew from here to Auckland on a beautiful clear day, and from Taranaki and all the way through to the King Country I saw a vast area of very hilly land with basically no farming and no trees on it. There is huge scope for us to go ahead and plant those lands. Based on the people who have come to see me and talk about the exciting opportunities this bill presents to them from a commercial point of view, it is possible that when this bill goes through, we will actually see money coming into this country—and God knows we desperately need that, given our balance of payments situation—from overseas people who would be prepared to get involved in planting trees in this country, simply in order to access the devolution of those carbon emission units. That would be a cash-flow driver for them. They do not want the land, they do not want the trees; they just want to come here and make it happen. So I am very excited with this bill’s potential.

Jeanette Fitzsimons mentioned the deforestation that is occurring at the moment. I think that that is a tragedy. I have done a graph going all the way back to the 1930s, and every time there has been a Labour Government, of any stripe, the numbers in tree-plantings have gone down. I ask myself when the Labour Party will get its head around the importance of forestry to this country. To sit here doing nothing—as has been happening since the year 1999—and to see our forest estate going backwards, I think is a tragedy. It is really counter to all that the Government gives lip service to, in terms of climate change. Not only that, tree planting, even plantation forests, opens up commercial possibilities for the future.

When it comes to climate change, United Future’s policy is unashamedly “Let’s pick the low fruit first.” We should do the things we can that are practical—and where there are no regrets, no downside, but only upside from every point of view—and do those first, rather than try to get to the fruit right at the top of the tree, and somehow to be some sort of world leader. That is not our role. The big European nations, which Jeanette Fitzsimons and others have mentioned, can do that. By the way, those nations have made some terrible mistakes, which we can learn from, and we do not want to go down their route.

I was amazed that Jeanette Fitzsimons said there was nothing much in the bill about the conditions around permanent forest sinks. I tell the House that there is a whole page of them, under new clause 67Z, inserted by clause 30 in Part 2. All of the obligations that landowners will have to enter into, if they want to go into permanent forest sinks, are set out there. They state, for example, that the landowner is required to be the guarantor or insurer of those forests, or to provide any other risk management arrangement the Minister considers appropriate. The landowner is required to control the harvest of timber, and to have a forest sink management plan. The covenant is to be expressed to have effect in perpetuity, and so on. A whole page of conditions is laid out there, so as far as we are concerned the template is in this bill. There is just time now for us collectively, as a nation and as a Parliament, to get on with the job and make a difference to climate change. Thank you.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Otago) : I have been so keen for my turn to speak on the Climate Change Response Amendment Bill I have been popping up and down in a most unseemly fashion. I am disappointed that the Minister for Climate Change is not here tonight for the second reading of this bill.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): The member needs to withdraw and apologise for that; that is not acceptable.

JACQUI DEAN: I withdraw and apologise. I am disappointed that the Minister for Climate Change has not made a contribution to the second reading of this legislation. After all, he would have us believe that, unlike National, the Labour Government not only recognises climate change but also is prepared to get in there and do something about it. Despite all the Minister’s endless talk, all the endless conferences and press releases, all the overseas travel to talk about it, where—after 7 years in Government—is the Government’s policy on climate change? I fear that this legislation—the Climate Change Response Amendment Bill—is it, and the Minister responsible for it is not even making a contribution to it through its second reading.

This bill was reported back to the House by the Commerce Committee—when was it, in July 2005? It was certainly before my time in Parliament. That makes it a bill that is so important to this Government, this bill on climate change, that it has sat around at the bottom of the Order Paper for—let me count the months—15 months. That is how important this bill on climate change is to this Government.

So what has the Labour Government achieved in the past 7 years on climate change policy—a policy it is so concerned about? Well, we signed up to the Kyoto Protocol, which was meant to save the world. Actually, it was meant to save 0.02 percent of the emissions that we contribute to the world. At the same time, signing up to the Kyoto Protocol was going to make us an absolute bundle. It was going to be fantastic. It was going to make us around $500 million. The problem is that the Government made a slight miscalculation and it turns out that instead of New Zealand making an absolute bundle, we owe an absolute bundle because of signing up to the Kyoto Protocol. And how much is that bundle that we owe? It is around $500 million.

What else have we had? We have had the carbon tax, which, they figured out eventually, was not going to work. So that was another Government policy on climate change that was a resounding failure. We had the “fart tax”—the famous “fart tax”, which, they figured out, was not going to work. That, for the Government, was another resounding failure. We have had an energy efficiency strategy. We have had an energy efficiency strategy—I love saying those words. I have to look every time I read them out because—[Interruption] That is the problem—it took $100 million of taxpayer money to tell the Government that it was not going to work.

So let me recap the Government’s climate change policy initiatives so far: we have the “fart tax”, we have the carbon tax, and we have the energy efficiency strategy. Have any of them worked? No, none of them have worked. We have had the Kyoto Protocol, which not only has not worked but also we signed up for it until 2013, I think, and it is costing us half a billion dollars. [Interruption] It is not very successful; one could only call it a tiny little bit successful—one would almost call it unsuccessful.

The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment has described the Government as operating in a climate change vacuum. As soon as I sit down next to someone on a plane who is in the energy industry or the climate change industry—anybody involved in the environment—and he or she knows I am a minor back-bencher from the National Party, the first thing anybody says is: “Hi, Jacqui, would you please do something about the climate change and the energy policy?”. That is all I ever hear from anybody in the electricity industry. We are operating in a policy vacuum.

What is the response from the Government? Well, earlier this evening MP Steve Chadwick said in this debate when she was challenged by Dr Nick Smith about a lack of climate change policy: “Just wait, it is coming.”

Hon Dr Nick Smith: So is Christmas.

JACQUI DEAN: Thankfully, so is Christmas, and the next general election. So that, I suspect, will take care of itself in due course. In the meantime, the National caucus have produced a policy, and it is called A Bluegreen Vision for New Zealand. It has been so well received, it is embarrassing. Often when I sit in this Chamber I hear the cry, “Where’s your policy?”, coming from the Government benches when we are in the middle of a debate. Members opposite are very fond of shouting out: “Where’s your policy?”. It is a funny thing, because in this instance, that cry applies to the Government. It is the National Party that has produced a ABluegreen Vision for New Zealand. What has the Government produced? Oh yes, that is right; let me find it—it is somewhere here on my bench. The Government has produced a minor bill, after it has sat for 15 months at the bottom of the Order Paper, called the Climate Change Response Amendment Bill—big deal! What strikes me when I look at this Climate Change Response Amendment Bill—big deal—is that the select committee membership has changed in the time between the previous Parliament and this one.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Half of them are gone.

JACQUI DEAN: Well, it look to me as if we have only half of those members still in Parliament, so we would have to question how very relevant this bill before the House is. I was looking around today and I found an interesting, yet worrying, report from the World Wildlife Fund for Nature. It shows that humans are stripping nature at an unprecedented rate—well, there is nothing new in that—and it claims that by 2050 the human race will need two planets’ worth of natural resources to feed current consumption rates. That is very disturbing, but do people know what is even more disturbing? It is that the World Wildlife Fund for Nature ranks New Zealand ninth on a list of 10 countries using up the natural resources of planet Earth. We are the ninth-worst out of 10. What is the Government’s response to this? It is a climate change policy that states: “Just wait, it is coming.”, and that is all we have seen from the Government.

National knows where we should go with our climate change policy, because we have put out a discussion document, ABluegreen Vision for New Zealand, which, as I have said, has been so well received, it is embarrassing. We have proposals for tradable emission permits in order to manage New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions. Starting with the energy sector, we will be capping electricity emissions by requiring all additional emissions from fossil fuel power stations to be offset by forestry planting. That is sensible, and it gives a sense of direction for the energy and forestry industries. We propose a major boost into research for agricultural emissions. We will not clobber farmers with a “fart tax”. We will invest in making agriculture more efficient—that is sensible—and, very important, we will reform the Resource Management Act in order to facilitate the development of renewable energy.

Darren Hughes: We’ve already done that.

JACQUI DEAN: Oh no, this Government has not, I say to the member. This Government, after 7 years’ stewardship of our environment, can say that our emissions are growing at three times the rate of Australia’s and four times the rate of the United States—and those are our trading partners that are not hobbled by the Kyoto Protocol. This is a Government on whose watch we have seen a threefold increase in power produced from coal, and it is a Government that has sat firmly on the picket fence over Project Aqua and will not, or cannot, recognise the impediment that the Resource Management Act provides to future energy project investments.

We will support this bill, and we view sensible climate change policy more seriously than clearly the Minister responsible for Climate Change does, as he has not made a contribution to tonight’s debate. We will support this bill, because we support tradable emissions permits, and we look forward to moving amendments during the Committee stage.

Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Labour—Wellington Central) : Until the previous speaker spoke, I felt that this was a day when I felt comfortable in the House. It was one of those rare occasions when I felt that we were really working together on an issue bigger than any of our individual tribes. But that last speech did not really encourage me in that prospect.

However, I will make one particular comment first, and it is about Project Aqua. The resolution that occurred in terms of Project Aqua was actually about stopping the subdivision of environmental issues into separate baskets. There is no separate basket called the Kyoto Protocol, there is no separate basket called clean air, there is no separate basket called energy production, there is no separate basket called irrigation, and there is no separate basket called the conservation of rivers. When we did the work on the Waitaki scheme we used, for once in our lives, not an adversarial method but an inquisitorial method that gave people with an interest in every part of the river a voice. It was not a question of saying that some forms of energy are there and some are not. We will solve environmental problems only when we stop separating aspects of them into little baskets.

I happened to agree very strongly with Jeanette Fitzsimons, co-leader of the Green Party, tonight when she said that every human being on this planet must act responsibly about greenhouse gas emissions. The issue is not about playing off one party against another, or about playing farmers off against viticulturists or against trout fishers, but is about saying that every one of us has a responsibility to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in our lives—and we do not play nations off against each other. Fundamentally, in the end, that is the basis of the Kyoto Protocol. We must play our part and, unlike the previous speaker, I know that this Government, in the last 7 years, has been playing its part.

I can recall calling together the very first meeting of a number of members of Government departments on the issues around the Kyoto Protocol when I was a very raw Minister. I discovered at that stage that the officials from the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry did not know how many animals there were in New Zealand. The ministry had given up on having any way of accounting for them, which meant there was no way of knowing what their methane emissions were. That was the inheritance we faced. Not only was that the case, but we faced a Ministry of Transport that had no policy on vehicle emissions. That was what we faced. So we faced departments that not only failed to work together as one—it is not only parties that do not work together as one—but actually worked against each other.

That situation has changed radically. I think about the scheme for clean air environment standards, which has an absolute commitment towards reducing vehicle emissions, and about the work it is doing in Auckland and the incentive that it causes to bring about energy efficiency in homes, so that we have clean air and, therefore, lower emissions. If we turn to the research work on methane, I do find it very hard to listen when a member of the Opposition stands up and goes on about the “fart tax”, when what we were really asking for was a contribution from the farming industry towards finding out what was there, in terms of methane emissions from animals. I think those members speak from a sense of shame rather than a sense of pride. Instead of going to the farmers, we decided we would fund the research in another way, because we need to find out why and how methane is emitted. I think that it is irresponsible to play those games. It is opportunist and populist, and we should be well past populism if we are really working together on the issue of climate change.

I believe that this Government has worked particularly hard on a very difficult issue, but we cannot argue at the international level around the Kyoto Protocol issues unless we do something more than we are now doing. We must take action ourselves. We cannot go out there and point the finger at India or China, unless we start to reduce our emissions. If we look at what is happening in the United Kingdom at the moment, which has apparently tripled its carbon dioxide emissions since Tony Blair has been in Government—well, that is what has been quoted—we see the United Kingdom is making even tougher rules, far tougher than those we face in New Zealand, to deal with those particular issues. We need to walk the talk about reducing greenhouse gas emissions before we can start to point the finger at anyone else.

But we also need to share the technology. The fact is that in the case of the islands that we are talking about, on those atolls in the Pacific where the water is rising and lapping up nearly 5 metres higher than previously, people burn diesel in order to generate energy. Lord almighty, what are we doing if we are not sharing our technology! We have a long way to go on that issue in this particular society.

I am really happy that National supports this bill—and I am happy about that, I say to the Hon Dr Nick Smith—because I think we are getting the message in this House that our community is concerned about the issue of climate change. So working together is positive.

I welcome the fact that Tariana Turia talked about the importance of forest planters gaining benefit from carbon sequestration. When I think about another issue around Lake Taupō, I realise that forestry and forestry planting, and Tūwharetoahapū being able to claim benefit from that—rather than having to put in dairy farms in order for one hapū to catch up with another—is one way to make sure that we can gain some benefit from that. So there are two values: cleaner water and more variety of land use, as well as carbon sinks. The cleverer we are about uniting the different impacts, in terms of addressing environmental issues, the better we will go. I also appreciate that the permanent nature of the canopy allows for indigenous forests, as well as the monoculture of Pinus radiata, to be planted. That has a real benefit, particularly for some of our furniture industries.

We must reduce emissions, though, as well as mitigating their effects. So although we encourage permanent forest sinks, we have to do work on the other side of the equation, by reducing emissions. This bill is only one part of a whole programme that is being promoted by this Government. We should remind ourselves that there is an adaptation programme, because this issue is about adaptation to climate change—and those of us who were in Wellington this weekend will understand about that.

The programme is about our coastal areas and our farming sector, but it is also about measures to improve the energy efficiency of our buildings. There is a consultation on minimum biofuels sales obligations, and we have to actually be serious about using alternative energies to drive our cars. We can talk about heating our homes and we can talk about industry, but we also have to look at the carbon dioxide that comes out of our cars and our vehicles as we move around. We can talk about increased public passenger transport and about better trains, but we have to move what is transported by road also, and that cannot always be put on trains—[Interruption] I am finding it extremely hard to think, with that person roaring at me from the other side of the House. There are also options to create links with the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate. Those are the issues that we need to face when we are talking about our Pacific partners. There are options to improve the fuel efficiency of our vehicle fleet, in terms of what we import and what we manufacture in this country.

There are ways in which Government agencies can lead the way in respect of sustainable practices. Today, in a select committee, I watched a member of the Opposition be very critical of one Government department that was taking Govt3 practice seriously. That concerns the whole notion of sustainable development. The member was querying whether there were too many bureaucrats trying to work things out, when that department was buying smaller cars in its fleet, doing work to reduce paper usage in its ministry, and trying to be sustainable. So, again, I make a plea: if we are serious about climate change, and if we are serious about sustainable practice in this country, we must not look at the issue in terms of one-off boxes but look at it holistically.

I welcome the fact that most members of this House have supported the Climate Change Response Amendment Bill.

SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) : It is a rare occasion when one can stand in this Parliament and find total support for legislation from all parties in the Chamber. So to some extent this is something that is quite good to be involved in. Doping is fundamentally contrary to the spirit of sport, and it puts at risk the ethical principles and educational values combined in the International Charter of Physical Education and Sport of Unesco. For that reason the National Party is very much in support of this legislation. The anti-doping programmes, therefore, seek to preserve what is intrinsically valuable about sport, which is characterised by values such as honesty, ethics, fairness, health, respect, courage, commitment, and solidarity. It is not often that one can find all those words strung together in one bill. It is just a pity that one or two of the political parties in this Parliament could not exercise what is being attempted in this legislation.

The code that seeks to harmonise international efforts to address doping in sport was finalised at the World Conference on Doping in Sport, which was held in Copenhagen from 3 to 5 March 2003. Clearly that was a good position to take. I understand the Minister in the chair, the Hon Trevor Mallard, might have been somewhere near there at the time, so he is to be congratulated on taking us to that position.

It is heartening to see that this Government, which is not well known for this characteristic, has decided not to introduce charges when it comes to Customs Service checks at the border, and other checks where charges take place. When we think about other border control measures put in place by this Government, it has introduced charges on a scale that we have never seen before. I am pleased the Government chose not to do that in this case. The sharing of information or evidence by the New Zealand Police, the Customs Service, and others is eminently sensible. So those who drafted the legislation, and of course the very good Government Administration Committee that looked at it, condoned all those measures.

Darren Hughes: Who chairs that committee?

SHANE ARDERN: That committee is very ably chaired, and I welcome interjections from my “Nigerian” brother across the Chamber, and suggest that some of the measures brought before the committee had all the aroma, flavour, and taste of—what was it?

Darren Hughes: Nigerian cowhead stew.

SHANE ARDERN: Nigerian cowhead stew. Of course, it would have had the same effect on one’s running ability, if one had ingested it. I suggest that the Minister in the chair go back and look at some of the things that the select committee had to deal with. We really did tidy that up.

Part 3 deals with the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand. Membership consists of at least five but no more than nine members. Each member is appointed by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the Minister for Sport and Recreation, on the basis of his or her qualifications and ability to represent the sporting sector. That is very sensible as well, and, once again, it is almost out of character for this Government to get so many things right. I am wondering what has happened to the Minister! Perhaps his hopes and aspirations for higher office were at the forefront of his mind, therefore he did not give this bill his usual attention and thereby it did not get mucked about. I congratulate the Minister on achieving that goal.

Around the world, New Zealanders are known as a group of individuals who box above their weight, and no more so than in sport. Our New Zealand All Blacks are the best in the world. They are world-famous. Our basketball players, our netball players, our golfers—you name it; we are the best. It is a great thing, because it brings everybody together and is good for the health of the nation. I say to the Minister that anything that minimises the use of drugs in this regard has to be positive.

COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) : It is indeed an honour to speak to the Sports Anti-Doping Bill. I would like to concentrate just a bit on Part 3. My learned colleague talked about the tribunal, and it surprises me to some degree that it has taken this length of time to put these very important structures in place so that we can move forward. Having come from an organisation—Shearing Sports NZ—that received funding from Sport and Recreation New Zealand, we had to have a drug policy and implement it. Anybody who ever went for a shearing record had a blood sample taken for testing. So it is quite interesting to see that we are putting in place the Sports Anti-Doping Bill now and to see how it is structured. It is quite significant that this be given quite a bit of credibility, if confidence is to be built based around this function.

We have Drug Free Sport New Zealand, the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand, and rules that must be upheld. It is interesting that membership of the tribunal consists of a minimum of five and a maximum of nine members. When we look at the requirements for appointment as a member, we see that those people must be very appropriately qualified, so we could say they do not just fall off the back of a truck. The seriousness of this statutory tribunal is recognised by the fact that those people are appointed by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the Minister, who consults with the board of Sport and Recreation New Zealand.

The Governor-General appoints the chairperson, and that person must not only have a good knowledge of sport but also legal knowledge. That is very important. If the tribunal does not have the overall trust and confidence of the entire institutions of sport when it is dealing with matters brought before it, then it will collapse and will not uphold the good intentions of the sports anti-doping legislation. So Part 3 is very important. The Governor-General also appoints the deputy chairperson. The chairperson, deputy chairperson, and at least one other member must be a barrister or solicitor of the High Court of New Zealand with no less than 7 years’ practice, and must have substantial experience in legal issues affecting sport or have had a substantial involvement in sport. They need a minimum of a 10-year aggregate period of experience in a sporting body or a high level of sporting experience.

The tribunal in itself has to be quite robust and, because it is a statutory body, its functions go to considerable lengths to ensure that its powers are carried out. It has the power to summon witnesses. It also has the power to ensure that those people who refuse to turn up, do so at the risk of a fine—the fines are spelt out in Part 3—so there can be no doubt in the minds of those concerned about what they are undertaking. However, the tribunal’s importance is also recognised by the fact that costs can be imposed where those people do not turn up or do not subscribe to the appropriate course of conduct. An order for those costs can be filed in the District Court and may be enforced as a judgment of that court.

This bill is a foundation cornerstone to having robust sporting anti-doping legislation and, as such, finds its place appropriately—although considerably later than it should have been—on the statute book. Interestingly, only two submissions were received. I would not say that in itself would indicate a lack of interest. I would probably say those two submissions were quite appropriate, but it also indicates there was a universal acceptance of the importance of this legislation.

So as we go forward supporting this Sports Anti-Doping Bill, we recognise that New Zealand does have a good record to uphold in the world of sport. We want to be able to hold up our sporting heroes as examples, and sport is probably the very best activity we can encourage our young ones to participate in. When one drives back from the airport in Blenheim one goes past the sign, “A child in sport stays out of court”, and as long as our young ones do not dabble in drugs, that would tend to be the case.

If people who are involved in sport aim to be at the top end and are tempted to cheat, we say that cheating is not allowed. If those people take stimulants of a prescribed nature that exaggerate their performance, whether in training or in competition, that is cheating—and they will be punished by the tribunal. The tribunal has a set of rules, which it will uphold with integrity and honour.

BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) : By popular demand I am back, and I thank you, Mr Chairperson, for the call on the Sports Anti-Doping Bill, though my colleagues on the other side of the Chamber might regret having supported my call when I get to the substance of what I want to talk about.

Let me start by saying that anything that sends a message that drug abuse in sport will not be tolerated has my support. Anything that sends a message that says that cheating will not be tolerated, no matter under what guise, has my support. But if ever there was legislation that did not need to come to this Chamber, this is it. Let me articulate why I believe that.

This bill will provide the legislative framework to facilitate New Zealand’s compliance with the World Anti-doping Code. That is a voluntary code, but what would have happened had we not signed on to this? Let me tell the Committee that the perfect market effect would have taken place. Sportspeople cannot participate in elite sporting events anywhere in the world unless they abide by the code. To waste Parliament’s time legislating this is simply unnecessary. The real reason for doing it is that the Minister for Sport and Recreation wants to be able to tell the world that New Zealand was one of the first to sign on to the Unesco convention. A self-governing model was in place, yet here we are, at 9 o’clock on 25 October 2006, talking about this type of legislation.

The other thing I want to refer to is information sharing, which is something that throughout the course of the bill in the Government Administration Committee I felt rather strongly about. There is a conflicting message in what we are suggesting in the stamping out of drugs and in what we have decided to do as a committee. I respect the select committee process, and I respect the fact that my arguments there were put and lost, but there is still an opportunity to raise them in the course of this debate.

“Evidence of a prohibitive drug in an athlete’s blood may be sufficient to affect the athlete’s rights under a sporting code, but it is unlikely to be sufficient evidence for Police purposes.” That is what we have written in the commentary on the bill. I want to raise this objection, and I want to raise it now. If we do not say to elite athletes that we will not tolerate their using class A drugs, then however will we get the message out to the wider community that taking drugs in any guise is simply not acceptable? We have an agency that has now proudly changed its name to Drug Free Sport New Zealand, yet at the same time the committee would not write into the legislation that it has no tolerance whatsoever of class A drugs.

A high-profile example is the case of Wendell Sailor, the Wallabies right-winger, who was caught with a class A drug by his blood tests. The argument rages that that may not be enough reason for a conviction, but for goodness’ sake, does it not put the police on notice that there is a member of society, a member of the wider community, who is getting access to an illicit drug, regardless of whether it is sports-enhancing? He was engaged—and he has now admitted it—in illegal activities.

We have lost the opportunity as a Parliament to send out a very clear message that we object not only to drug cheating in sport but also to drug use, full stop, and that the full force of the law will be brought down upon those who engage in these types of activities.

I realise that we do not want to prolong this debate, but I want to take the opportunity to thank the select committee members for the way they have worked on this legislation. I also thank the advisers who came to the select committee and offered their assistance. Before I conclude, I will reiterate the message about drugs. In order to set a precedent that says drug taking of any sort will not be tolerated, we need to write it into our legislation when the opportunity presents itself and we need to be firm and walk the talk.

JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) : Mr Chairman—

Darren Hughes: The athletic prowess himself.

JOHN HAYES: The member for Otaki might laugh but I have been out every morning for weeks, doing my 30 minutes Push Play. I say to that youthful member of this House, who probably cannot remember back to the 1960s, that at that time, when I was young—[Interruption]—yes, I say to Ms Dalziel; about the same time as she was young—our parents had to demand that we come in from being outside. Today, under this politically correct, cringing administration, we have trouble getting our kids to go outside. They are glued to the Internet, they are glued to television—

Martin Gallagher: It’s all Darren’s fault.

JOHN HAYES: It is—the bikie boy from Otaki. Because we are dealing with a leftist administration, I suggest that we could find useful, because we are supporting this bill together, the words of Nelson Mandela, who extolled the virtues of sport in the following way: “Sport is very important for building character”—the member might pass that on to the Prime Minister—“because when you’re involved in sport your individual character comes out, your determination, your ability to be part of the team, and the acceptance of the collective effort is extremely important in developing your country as well as patriotism.” It is in this context that I want to reflect for half a minute on the issue of role models, because they are extremely important to the development of our community.

Over the last 20 years I have seen the development of commercial sport, with people earning very, very significant amounts of money. When they have finished with their sport, having earned quite a lot of money, they seem to move on to the entertainment industry, where they earn more significant amounts of money. But there is a common denominator—drugs. I think the people who have found themselves tangled up in this way are very poor role models, and that is why I welcome, and my party welcomes, this bill and supports the Labour Government in promoting it. I think that is a very important issue.

As I said at an earlier stage of this bill, sport is a thriving and vital part of our economy. We see it here in Wellington in the impact of sporting events at the Cake Tin.

Hon Trevor Mallard: The what? I thought the member came from the Wellington region. It’s not called that in the Wairarapa.

JOHN HAYES: The Cake Tin, yes. The member’s Wainuiōmata ratepayers contributed, as did mine in the Wairarapa. I think sport also helps project the nation on the international stage, and I particularly welcome the activities of our yachtsmen who are competing in, and preparing for, the America’s Cup campaign. I think sport plays a significant role, potentially, in our international relations.

The habits developed in childhood remain with us for life. Coming back to what I said at the beginning, I think there are many reasons for the diminishing rate of participation in sport among children. A glimpse inside the average suburban home in the Wairarapa provides the clues: television, computer games, and the Internet. Our communities now—and I am talking particularly of the Wairarapa—have far more two-income families and single-parent families for whom getting children to and from sport is very difficult. I think we need as a community to address these issues.

Let me refer now to the bill, and in particular to Subpart 3, “Rules”, in Part 2. Clause 16(4) states: “Before making a rule under this section, the board must give national sporting organisations, athletes, and the Privacy Commissioner”—God help us—“a reasonable opportunity to comment on the proposed rule.” Having the Privacy Commissioner involved is an example of political correctness. Then I refer to clause 17, and in particular to subclause (1), which states: “The following written material may be incorporated by reference in the rules: (a) standards, requirements, or recommended practices of the World Anti-Doping Agency:”. That is fair enough. Then that is repeated: “(b) the World Anti-Doping Agency’s International Standards:”. It strikes me that that is superfluous and unnecessary. Paragraph (c) states: “the World Anti-Doping Agency’s Models of Best Practice.” This is very poorly drafted legislation.

Let me go on. Clause 18, “Effect of amendments to, or replacement of, material incorporated by reference in rules”, states—work this lot out—“An amendment to, or replacement of, material incorporated by reference in the rules (the principal rules) has effect as part of the principal rules only if rules made after the making of the principal rules state that the particular amendment or replacement has that effect.” What is the Minister for Sport and Recreation up to here? This is gobbledegook—absolute nonsense, with no meaning at all. And he is asking us to support it? For goodness’ sake, he should get his drafting sorted out.

Let us move on to clause 20, “Effect of expiry of material incorporated by reference”, which states: “Material incorporated by reference in the rules that expires or is revoked or ceases to have effect, ceases to have legal effect as part of the rules only if rules made under section 16 state that the material ceases to have legal effect.” I say to the people of this country that they are paying millions of dollars for bureaucrats to write this gibberish, this absolute and utter nonsense. It hurts me to have to get up here and support this bill, because I disapprove of this absolute nonsense that the Minister is promoting to us and to the people of New Zealand.

Next, I refer the Minister to clause 33, “Term of office of members of Tribunal”, which states: “Except as provided in section 34, a member of the Tribunal holds office for a term not exceeding 5 years.” Well, what is wrong with 3 years? We should keep it near to a parliamentary term, because in that way we can keep a balance in appointment processes.

Next is the real hole in the Minister’s legislation, clause 43, “Privileges and immunities”, which states: “(1) Witnesses appearing before the Tribunal have the same privileges and immunities as witnesses have in proceedings in a District Court. (2) Every counsel, agent, or other person appearing before the Tribunal has the same privileges and immunities as counsel have in proceedings in a District Court.” If I were from another country, such as China, which exports dope and drugs, and, in particular, sport-enhancing drugs, I think I would put all my athletes on diplomatic passports, because straight away the whole lot of them would be exempt from the Minister’s rules.

SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) : My colleague has raised some very interesting issues. Perhaps the Minister might like to take a call and elucidate what he thinks will happen in terms of District Court rules applying to overseas athletes here in New Zealand and how that will be addressed. I commend, yet again, my colleagues Shane Ardern and Brian Connell for their sterling efforts at the Government Administration Committee to ensure we have something that we can at least manage to some degree. [Interruption] What is the bleating over there from that member? He cannot even get himself to a select committee.

In relation to this bill, the issue of the sharing of information about positive drug tests has been raised a number of times in the House. I would like to share with members a report that came to the select committee with additional detail on the implications of amending the Sports Anti-Doping Bill to require Drug Free Sport New Zealand or the Sports Tribunal to share information with the police about the results of blood or urine tests if the test results indicate that an athlete has used a substance that is classified under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.

The select committee asked Sport and Recreation New Zealand officials to consider whether the bill should require Drug Free Sport New Zealand to share drug-testing results with the police. These officials advised the select committee that Drug Free Sport New Zealand should not be required to share information about alleged criminal offences with the police, the Customs Service, or any other agencies. Under the bill, Drug Free Sport New Zealand will not be prevented from sharing the information, and the decision on whether to share it will be made on a case by case assessment. Drug Free Sport New Zealand will have the ability to share the information if it feels it is a serious issue. I know that my colleague Brian Connell was particularly concerned about this point. He took a very strong position on this and I commend him for that.

The select committee asked Sport and Recreation New Zealand officials to provide further advice on this issue, and to canvass this matter with the Minister for Sport and Recreation and other interested agencies. They discussed the issue with the Minister for Sport and Recreation, and perhaps he might like to take a call and explain his view. They also discussed it with Drug Free Sport New Zealand, the New Zealand Police, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, and the Ministry of Justice. Based on these discussions, the view of the officials remained that it would be undesirable to require Drug Free Sport New Zealand to share with the police the results of blood and urine tests. It is good to reiterate this point to settle people’s minds about the reasoning for not including mandatory sharing of information.

The World Anti-Doping Agency has a code that sets out a decision-making formula, which can be found in some of the reports. When an athlete is subject to a doping test under the World Anti-Doping Code, the blood or urine sample is divided into an “A” sample and a “B” sample. At step two in the diagram, the “A” sample is where the sample has tested positive for a prohibited or specified substance under the code and, for the purpose of this example, has also tested positive for a substance that is classified under the Misuse of Drugs Act. That is what is in the “A” category.

The Sport and Recreation New Zealand officials considered it was premature for Drug Free Sport New Zealand to share information about the test result with another agency at step two in the process because Drug Free Sport New Zealand would not have had an opportunity to review the testing process to ensure there had been no testing error—which can, of course, occasionally happen when there is a laboratory malfunction or there has been a confusion of the samples. Step two was also a point where Drug Free Sport New Zealand would not have had an opportunity to check whether the athlete had used the substance illegally, or legally as a prescription medicine, and where the athlete had not been given an opportunity to have the “B” sample tested. Also, Drug Free Sport New Zealand is obliged, under the World Anti-Doping Code, not to publicly release the name of the athlete until after there has been an administrative review. That, of course, is all part of the process; it is actually step three. Drug Free Sport New Zealand would undertake an administrative review to see whether the athlete has a therapeutic-use exemption.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Otago) : I support this Sports Anti-Doping Bill. It is a great thing that we have a bill that really encapsulates what all of us must feel about the association of drugs with sport. I guess we have all seen examples of bodybuilders and weightlifters ruining their kidneys and falling victim to taking muscle-enhancing drugs. I do not know much about the drugs themselves, but I do know the message that this bill is sending out to young people and young sportspeople in New Zealand.

I understand that the bill will provide a framework that will allow New Zealand to comply with the World Anti-Doping Code. So the spirit of the bill reaches out well beyond New Zealand shores and brings us into line with the thinking on drugs and sport throughout the world. It is good that the bill retains the former New Zealand Sports Drug Agency and renames it, more aptly and more appropriately, Drug Free Sport New Zealand. I support the very clear message that the renaming of this agency brings with it. This, of course, is the organisation responsible for the rules that reflect the code in New Zealand. It is good that the bill also retains the Sports Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand, renaming it the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand, which is fine.

National sporting agencies will be able to adopt the rules, as provided in the bill, through the anti-doping policies. The bill outlines the functions of Drug Free Sport New Zealand, which will include consultation with Government sporting organisations, local authorities, the New Zealand Olympic Committee Inc., national sporting organisations, and any other bodies on any matters concerned with doping in sport. So it brings me to the point of wondering why the Minister responsible for drug policy is undermining the very spirit and intention of this bill by not clamping down on the sale of benzylpiperazine-based products, which are drugs that are also freely available to our young people.

How can it be that within our Government we have one Minister who is promoting a Sports Anti-Doping Bill that sends all the right messages to our young people but, within that very same Government, we have another Minister who is also concerned with drug policy and the message that that drug policy sends to New Zealanders—a message that absolutely, without doubt, irrefutably, undermines the very spirit of this bill? It makes me wonder what it will take for the “Minister of Drug Policy”, the Hon Jim Anderton, to get off his hands, stop looking up at the ceiling, stop travelling overseas, stop sending funny messages out to farmers and finally do something about tightening the regulations around benzylpiperazine in New Zealand. It is an embarrassment for the Government. It is so embarrassing! I mean, on the one hand Government members are going out there with the Sports Anti-Doping Bill, saying that it is sending all the right messages to young people, but on the other hand they are saying that people can go down to their dairies and buy benzylpiperazine-based products. Where is the consistency in our message on drugs in New Zealand?

I can tell members that as far as the National Party is concerned, our message is extremely consistent on drugs, which is why we support this bill. I believe we should be sending one, extremely clear message to our young people. Whether it is rugby, hockey, or drama they are involved in, I do not care; the message we should be sending to them from this Parliament should be very clear and very simple. It is that all recreational drugs, or mind-altering drugs, are bad. But what is this Government sending out? With the Sports Anti-Doping Bill it is sending out one message —a very good message, I say to the Minister—but, in our drug policy and in the Misuse of Drugs Act, it is sending out a completely different, waffly, “Oh, I’m not quite sure if it’s bad and is it doing any harm?” message. I think that that is entirely wrong.

NATHAN GUY (National) : It is good to take a call on the Sports Anti-Doping Bill. It is interesting that the word “doping” was probably derived from the Dutch word “dope”, which was an alcoholic drink made up of grape skins and used by Zulu warriors, apparently. It made them pretty macho in battle. So that is a little bit of history about where the word “dope” came from, many, many centuries ago.

The important thing is that performance enhancement through foreign substances—oh, the Minister is going to get out the dictionary now. We will look forward to something from the “Mallard Concise Dictionary” shortly.

The main thing is that for years and years there have been performance-enhancing drugs in sport.

Hon Trevor Mallard: “Doop” was the word.

NATHAN GUY: “Doop”?

Hon Trevor Mallard: Yes, that was the Dutch word.

NATHAN GUY: Oh, I thought it was “dope”.

Hon Trevor Mallard: No, “doop”—d, o, o, p.

NATHAN GUY: OK, I am using another dictionary from Holland. Anyway, it is a small debating point.

Hon Trevor Mallard: It is a derivative, so to speak.

NATHAN GUY: Thank you. Thanks for that. I will look forward to hearing a call from the Minister shortly.

What is actually happening is that this legislation is a bit of a tidy-up, as I look at it, because the old legislation looks to be a little bit fragmented and haphazard. I think that now what the Government Administration Committee and the Minister are trying to do—which we are supporting—is actually to modernise the rules around this subject and, in particular, around professionalism. It is really a matter of having a level playing field. I think back to the days when I used to play a little bit of rugby—that is, rugby to National Provincial Championship standard. I remember coming off the field from one particular game and seeing a colleague of mine being given a jar and having to do a urine sample, there and then on the spot. So he went away to drink a whole lot of water—

Brian Connell: That was Jerry’s problem.

NATHAN GUY: Oh, I am not sure about that. So this legislation will actually tidy up a few things that need to be done in order to move our sporting ethics into the modernised world. But I think the key thing with sport—and the Minister knows this, being a bit of a sport buff and having a history of playing for the parliamentary rugby team. Unfortunately, I do not think he will be putting on his boots next week for the golden oldies tournament, will he?

Hon Trevor Mallard: No, I’m history.

NATHAN GUY: Yes. That is actually a good comment.

Hon Trevor Mallard: In a rugby sense.

NATHAN GUY: Yes. We will wait for 2008, or before, to see whether that becomes true.

The good thing about sport, though, is that it enables participation, and I would hate to see this legislation stop people from playing sport. For a lot of rural and provincial areas around New Zealand it is extremely hard to attract people into our rugby clubs and sports clubs, so the important thing with sport is actually to make sure that people are able to participate.

I was pleased to see that the select committee did not want to refer to the police people who take some of these substances, because that to me would seem a bit ludicrous. Someone may have to take a substance on the advice of a doctor. Pethidine or morphine are examples. It would seem stupid to refer that to the police, because right now we have problems in our society and we need the police out there solving those problems. Notwithstanding that, if a major drug ring were involved in sports, then it should be referred to the police.

I alert the Minister to new subclause (2A) of clause 30: “In recommending a person for appointment as a member of the Tribunal, the Minister must have regard to the person’s personal attributes, qualifications, and skills.” There are a couple of people up in Horowhenua whom I think the Minister might like to consider. One of those, of course, is Dean Kent, a fantastic swimmer, who did extremely well in the Commonwealth Games of 2006, when he obtained a silver medal in the 200 metre individual medley in the pool.

Hon Trevor Mallard: You don’t think he might have a conflict at the moment?

NATHAN GUY: Ah—not that I am aware of.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Being a current athlete?

NATHAN GUY: Oh, yes—fair enough. I was meaning in more futuristic terms. The other one whom I think in the future the Minister might want to have a look at is a great sporting icon from Horowhenua, who is still playing a little bit. It is Carlos Spencer.

Jo Goodhew: Oh, we thought you were talking about you.

NATHAN GUY: No, no, not myself, I have actually retired. It is Carlos Spencer.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Where’s he playing?

NATHAN GUY: He is playing at the moment over in Northampton in England, but he will be coming back to New Zealand at some stage soon. He got his first tattoo at the age of 15 while at Waiōpehu College. So I say well done; it is a good bill and we support it. I look forward—

Hon Trevor Mallard: Say “Mr Chairman”, and you can keep going.

NATHAN GUY: Mr Chairman?

Hon Trevor Mallard: If you are praising me, you can keep going for another 5 minutes.

NATHAN GUY: I look forward to the Minister taking a call, because I think he needs to do so on a couple of things. One is the definition he has got out of his dictionary, and the other is his talking about himself being history. I think it would be great if he could take a call and further explain that.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Sport and Recreation) : I thank members for their contribution. I think it has been light-hearted, and members who know my rugby history with the parliamentary rugby team will know that they are not losing too much through my not being there with the team, although I will be thinking of them as they play. The member is absolutely right on the derivation of “dope”. It does come from the Dutch, and the spelling is “doop”. We would probably have to consult with Mr Duynhoven to get the exact pronunciation, later on.

I thank the Government Administration Committee for the work it has done on this bill. One point I would like to make is that although it was a spirited attack from Mr Hayes, he was entirely wrong. International athletes will not be able to become exempted by having diplomatic passports, because they will not appear through the system.

• The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 64 in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to Parts 3 and 4, and clause 2 be agreed to.

• Amendments agreed to.

Parts 3 and 4 as amended, schedules, clause 1, and clause 2 as amended, agreed to.

• Bill reported with amendment.

• Report adopted.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) : I move, That the Business Law Reform Bill be now read a second time. This is the third Business Law Reform Bill to come before the House. It is part of a programme of regular incremental reforms to improve our business laws. Most of the changes in the bill are not dramatic but improve the law in small ways. When those changes are taken together, the bill will make a significant contribution to keeping our business laws efficient, effective, and up to date, and will reduce unnecessary costs for business.

The Business Law Reform Bill contains 60 clauses, amending five business law statutes. It includes amendments to the Financial Reporting Act 1993, the Companies Act 1993, the Friendly Societies and Credit Unions Act 1982, the Insurance Companies’ Deposits Act 1953, and two technical changes to the Dumping and Countervailing Duties Act 1988.

As the explanatory note of the bill states, most of the amendments are based upon suggestions from business law practitioners, enforcements agencies, and the business community itself. It was these practitioners and members of the business community, as well as industry associations, who took the time to make submissions on the bill to the Commerce Committee. I acknowledge their experience and thank them for their advice in getting the bill to this stage.

Some of the changes the bill makes are purely technical, and I do not want to discuss those. Instead, I want to talk briefly about areas of the bill where significant changes to our business laws are being made. The first relates to financial reporting. The proposed changes to the Financial Reporting Act 1993 are aimed at generally improving the workability of the financial reporting system and reducing business compliance costs. In particular, the bill will remove excessive compliance requirements on many small companies and overseas companies. Exempt company provisions are expanded to now include a two-out-of-three test: total assets of no more than $1 million, and/or turnover of under $2 million, and/or five or fewer fulltime-equivalent employees. I note from the select committee’s report that there has been some debate about clause 28, which allows for these thresholds to be amended by the Governor-General by Order in Council. I appreciate the select committee’s report. Basically, as the specialist committee, it has determined that the risk of proceeding with this provision would be minimal, so I thank it for considering that matter and reporting back in that regard.

The bill also includes a new exemption-making power that will empower the Accounting Standards Review Board to make exemptions from approved financial reporting standards. This is intended to be a safety-valve provision. The purpose of it is to recognise that on rare occasions international financial reporting standards may not always be fully applicable to New Zealand circumstances. This exemption power has been designed to be used very rarely, if ever. Divergence between standards in different sectors can lead to lower levels of accountability and transparency, and applicants will need to make very strong cases in order to obtain an exemption. The select committee in its report has drawn attention to the submissions that opposed the granting of the exemption-making power, and I know that the Accounting Standards Review Board was one of those. I appreciate the detail with which the select committee has both considered and responded to the concerns that were raised by the Accounting Standards Review Board and others. I accept its reasoning in rejecting those submissions and pursuing what is indeed intended to be a transparent process.

One of the key aims of the bill is to reduce compliance costs resulting from administrative procedures. In this regard the bill also proposes to exempt some overseas companies from some of the reporting requirements imposed on those companies registered under the Companies Act. Changes are also proposed that are aimed at reducing the cost of distributing reports to shareholders. Companies will inform shareholders that the annual report can be obtained in hard copy or electronically.

I think, though, that the most important change in this legislation—one that I believe will help shareholders have a clear understanding of what it is that is being reported to them—is the ability for companies to offer shareholders concise annual reports more suited to the needs of ordinary investors and not requiring legal or accounting advice to interpret what in many instances are much more complex statements.

Currently, inactive companies are required to file financial statements with the Registrar of Companies that contain little or no new information. The bill removes these filing requirements for inactive companies. It will also improve enforcement by introducing an infringement notice system for company directors who fail to file their company’s financial statements with the Registrar of Companies by the due date. This will have a significant deterrent effect, in my view, and ensure that financial statements are indeed filed on time.

Proposed changes to the Companies Act 1993 further improve enforcement by extending the management and director banning provisions to persons who have been banned in certain overseas jurisdictions. Together with the exemptions of some overseas companies from some of the filing requirements imposed on overseas companies registered under the Companies Act, these changes will improve the trans-Tasman business environment and promote single economic market agenda objectives between New Zealand and Australia.

The bill also proposes to prohibit entities incorporated or established in New Zealand from using the word “insurance” or other similar terms in their names, or from holding out overseas that they are New Zealand insurers when they are not, in fact, carrying on insurance business in New Zealand. There are now automatic exemptions to this proposed ban for insurance workers and industry associations; both groups submitted on the bill and actually fall outside the objective we had intended to meet with this legislation. This change to the Insurance Companies’ Deposits Act is to prevent entities from representing that they are supervised under New Zealand’s insurance regulatory regime when they are not, and is necessary to prevent potential damage to New Zealand’s reputation internationally through companies behaving in that way.

The changes to the Friendly Societies and Credit Unions Act 1982 provide some of changes that have been long awaited. However, substantive reform still awaits the review of financial products and providers that is currently in the market for consultation.

In conclusion, although the bill deals with a range of amendments, the amendments are united by the aim of keeping our business laws up to date, clear, efficient, and effective. The changes will help business by removing unnecessary compliance costs. I thank the members of the Commerce Committee for their work in considering this bill—I actually believe they were quite outstanding—and again acknowledge the contributions of those who provided submissions on the bill. I commend the bill to the House.

PANSY WONG (National) : That passionate delivery by the Minister of Commerce just shows the excitement and big dreams she has for the business community. Actually, the Minister’s delivery reflected very fairly the way she treated the recommendations that came from the Small Business Advisory Group. It asked for courageous, bold steps such as relief for small business from the terrible employment situation where employers are too scared to employ inexperienced workers and give them a chance. It asked for a 3-month trial period for new employees, but what did this Minister deliver? Nothing. Instead she announced in the bill today just small, incremental steps to improve the business environment. Even though the Commerce Committee is a hard-working committee, I must admit that its members felt a bit underwhelmed by this legislation. None the less, any improvement for the business environment will be welcomed by National, and we fully support this bill.

I want to touch on two subjects that are quite interesting. The first subject is in regard to the provision that allows the Accounting Standards Review Board to make an exemption for certain entities not to comply with a financial reporting standard. Some of the submitters, particularly chartered accounting firms, put up objections to that. I was not surprised, because the accounting profession has a high degree of integrity. It is very nervous about making exemptions; it wants one standard for all.

Our recent champion with a high profile was the Auditor-General, Mr Kevin Brady, who believed absolutely that there should be one standard. He should be “Sir Kevin Brady”, and we should bring back the honours system for him, for insisting on one high standard for Labour. No political party should use parliamentary funding for electioneering purposes.

Arguments about the same type of standard were put to the Commerce Committee by submitters from chartered accounting firms. They were very nervous and said they did not believe that exemptions should be granted, in that case. The Commerce Committee took their concerns to heart. We debated long and hard, and ultimately accepted that the risk was really small, so we went along with the provision. But I want to acknowledge the high integrity of the chartered accountants, who in their submissions said that a standard should be set at a high level, and that compliance should be enforced at all times.

The second subject is in regard to the relaxation of the rules governing credit unions. This is another interesting story. The Minister was right; these amendments are long overdue. In fact, relaxation of the rules governing credit unions was promised by one Hon Jim Anderton, before Kiwibank was established. The credit unions met with the Hon Jim Anderton and he actually hinted that the rules would be relaxed for them, and that they could in fact take on banking functions. The credit unions were promised, but it did not happen. They were very disappointed when they brought their concerns to me, which was about 2 years ago. So we are happy to see these amendments at long last, but I am afraid to inform the Hon Jim Anderton that that is another broken promise. He raised the expectation of the credit unions many years ago that there would be a relaxation in their operation, but it was not delivered. The whole package has not been delivered even today. Labour Ministers do not aim for a huge improvement, so National has now learnt that it is obliged to support any small concession that Labour is prepared to make towards improvements for the business community.

BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) : I will start by saying that anything that reduces compliance costs for my constituents has my support, albeit what has been suggested in this legislation is rather superficial. The Minister, in her introductory remarks, told us that the Business Law Reform Bill is an omnibus bill that makes a number of changes to commercial legislation as suggested by Government officials and lawyers. That is an oxymoron if ever I have heard one.

Government officials and lawyers are the sorts of people who in my experience perpetuate compliance and have a vested interest in making sure that it is not reduced. If the Minister wants to rely on that quality of advice I say to her that it is no wonder she has problems intellectualising what needs to be done to reduce compliance costs across New Zealand. The Minister went on to outline a number of amended Acts, and she pointed out that the Companies Act 1993, the Dumping and Countervailing Duties Act, the Financial Reporting Act 1993, the Friendly Societies and Credit Unions Act, and the Insurance Companies’ Deposits Act 1953 had been amended. I have to say that they are all worthy changes, albeit relatively minor in the scale of things. The two that are most noteworthy are, firstly, the Companies Act, where directors banned overseas will be banned in New Zealand, and that makes sense. The bill goes on to say that it will remove filing requirements for foreign companies if information is supplied to the home regulator and provides an option of electronic accounts for shareholders. They are sensible amendments and, of course, we support those. Secondly, the Financial Reporting Act 1993 is amended to provide for the removal of unnecessary reporting requirements and to increase the eligibility for small businesses to have minimal filing responsibilities.

I am pleased to say that the Minister has taken heed of two things that were concerning business people across the country, and they are probably the two items that business people advised the Minister of, as opposed to Government officials and lawyers. Let us have a look at some of the more substantive issues not addressed in this bill. The first thing that comes to mind is the correlation between lawyers and the Resource Management Act. Am I the only one who has noticed in the last 10 years the huge explosion of legal practices that have developed based solely on the Resource Management Act? The Minister said in the House that she has taken advice from lawyers who have been telling her how compliance costs could be reduced. Lawyers who have practices substantially based on the Resource Management Act have a vested interest in making sure that the Resource Management Act continues unabridged in its most complex form. It is rather naive of the Minister to think that she can rely on their advice.

This Government has increased 40 different taxes, fees, and levies since taking office and a further four are proposed. And the Minister says that she is serious about reducing compliance costs! The Business New Zealand latest publication, Regulation Perspectives, calculates that over 2,000 new regulations have been introduced since 1999. I know that the member from New Zealand First will probably take a call after me. He has a habit of quoting things I have said, so I hope he gets it right. Two thousand new regulations have been introduced since 1999. Many of these regulations affect businesses, and the average cost to each firm was $53,000 in 2005, which is an increase of nearly 17 percent, up from $43,200 in 2003.

The issues addressed in the Al Dunn report in 1999-2000 are the critical issues that the Minister should have addressed in this bill but did not. The Al Dunn report highlighted 162 compliance issues that were of such importance the Government needed to take heed of them.

Pansy Wong: And this is for only minor issues!

BRIAN CONNELL: Pansy Wong points out that this bill is for only minor issues. I am sorry; I got the wrong end of the stick. I thought it was a bill that would reduce the costs of compliance per se.

Of the 162 items that the Al Dunn report highlighted, 143 of those said tax, the Resource Management Act, Occupational Safety and Health, and industrial relations are the four critical issues that the Government has to come to terms with. So I read the bill carefully, I looked for the components that were going to deal with tax, the Resource Management Act, Occupational Safety and Health, and industrial relations, and I am sad to have to report to the House that they have not been addressed. That explains, I say to Pansy Wong, why the Minister, when she took her call, did so in a very dispirited way. She mumbled and murmured into her microphone because she knew that the acid test of this bill would be in the detail, and that when the business people, whom she did not consult, sat down and read this bill they would be terribly, terribly disappointed.

I leave the House with just one quick example of why compliance costs and red tape in this country have got out of control. I suggest to the New Zealand First member that if he is ever down in Hinds, there is good little hotel there, called the Hinds Pub, surprisingly enough. I was in there speaking to constituents and a drink was forced on me. I was having a conversation with a chap who said: “Five years ago, I relied on the dole to maintain my livelihood, but that was leading me nowhere. So I started a business cutting firewood and have been doing that job for 5 years, Mr Connell.” He was one of the respectful constituents I have. “But today, I am extremely annoyed, because when I got home this evening, before I came down to the pub, I got a letter form OSH saying that in order to pursue my chosen career I had to get a certificate that demonstrated that I knew how to use the chainsaw that I have been using for the last 5 years.” That certificate was going to cost him 250 bucks. And do members know what he said? He said: “I feel like throwing it all away.” Actually, that is the polite way of saying it. What he actually said was: “I feel like taking my chainsaw to Wellington and dealing with the bureaucrats and your colleagues up there who think that this type of legislation is sensible.”

Nowhere in this legislation do I see anything that has come to grips with those concerns that drive hard-working business people across this country to distraction. With that contribution, I conclude.

R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) : New Zealand First will support the Business Law Reform Bill. In doing so, I have to say that New Zealand First has never been in favour of increasing compliance costs, taxation, or any of those sorts of things. The two big parties in New Zealand have increased taxes and done all of those things perfectly well for many, many years without our assistance. New Zealand First has a record of voting for tax reductions and we will continue to do so into the future. I will talk a little bit about reducing compliance costs and a little bit about the Dumping and Countervailing Duties Act for just a short period—in general terms, I might add—then I am happy to leave it to other speakers.

Before I do that, for those who preach doom and gloom, whether it is in New Zealand or anywhere else in the Western economies, people like Brian Connell and others who are well versed in these things and whose business expertise I respect, will tell them that around the Western World and in New Zealand, businesses across the board—not small businesses, I might tell members—are getting bigger and better and wealthier day by day. That is not always for producing the same things—the right things—or for exporting, which New Zealand First favours. Often they are importing companies and financial companies. New Zealand First certainly believes in incentivising the tax system for companies—we have said that consistently—and businesses in the racing industry are some that come to mind.

I will talk about compliance costs. We in New Zealand First believe that compliance costs should be reduced. We are certainly not in favour of extra regulation, and the sorts of occupational safety and health things that Mr Connell talked about, but those things are coming in. However, we are in favour of reducing compliance costs where we can.

I will talk just for a minute about dumping and countervailing duties. In this country, unfortunately, we have come into the situation where we are importing just about everything we use, mainly from Asian countries such as China and India. Those countries have excessively low wages and excessively high inputs from their Governments—in the case of China, it is a communist Government at that—yet those countries can still get their products into New Zealand. We talk about anti-dumping legislation and countervailing duty legislation that we do not use, but we should be using these sorts of mechanisms to ensure that, at least to some degree, our manufacturers and exporters have more of an opportunity.

I was in Australia just a little while ago—

Craig Foss: How were the apples?

R DOUG WOOLERTON: I will not talk about apples, but Australians are pretty good at keeping our apples out of their country and at protecting theirs. But more interesting was a place called—now I have forgotten the name of it—

Craig Foss: “Appleville”.

R DOUG WOOLERTON: No, it was where the tornadoes went through and wrecked the banana plantations, down on the Queensland coast. The Prime Minister of Australia, no less, promised the banana growers that the Australian Government would not import bananas from other countries because it would hold the faith with the banana growers of Australia. It would hold faith, let the prices rise, and would not import bananas from Fiji, South America, or anywhere else. The price of bananas when I was over there was $14 a kilogram—huge!

Brian Connell: That was the last week’s special.

R DOUG WOOLERTON: I know that it is last week’s special and I know that it is last week’s news. But if we are going to talk about business, business costs, and countervailing duties, then we need to talk about what the Australians do compared with what we do here in New Zealand. In Australia—as New Zealand First would advocate—the Government looks after its businesses. My goodness gracious me, does it look after its businesses or what!

In New Zealand, if we had sectors of our manufacturing areas or our farming areas wiped out, the stuff would come flooding in from any country in the world at the cheapest price possible, and to heck with the local producers. But not in Australia. John Howard himself got up and promised the banana farmers that, as they had had a reversal of circumstances and an act of God had come through and destroyed their crops, the Government would hold the faith with them and would not import bananas in competition with theirs. The price would rise so that, for the few bananas the growers had, they could receive a high dollar, which in some way would compensate for the losses they had had.

We in New Zealand First believe that that is a sensible way, and it is indeed a way of looking after industries in one’s own country. New Zealand First is happy to support this bill. It goes some way towards attending to the problems that we have in our industries, but not nearly far enough, as far as we are concerned.

CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) : There will be no bananas or any other fruit, cakes, or anything like that in my speech, which will take a quick few moments. Yes, National is supporting the second reading of the Business Law Reform Bill. I thank the Minister and the Commerce Committee as well, because I think they did listen to some amendments. But I want to pick up on one point that my colleague Pansy Wong alluded to.

• Debate interrupted.