JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Green) : I move, That the Sustainable Biofuel Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that this bill be referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee.

Biofuel made from a range of plant and animal materials has been hailed as our solution to peak oil and climate change, and condemned as the cause of mass starvation and the final destruction of natural ecosystems. Both are true, and neither is true. Both arguments are extremist and ignore the huge differences between fuels made from specially grown crops and fuels made from wastes or grown on land unsuitable for food production. The idea that it is OK to feed good human food, like grains, into motorcars while people are starving shows what happens when someone pursues a single-minded goal, excludes all other considerations, and totally loses sight of the big picture.

It also shows the abject failure of the market to allocate scarce goods when there are very big differences in ability to pay. There is only so much agricultural land available, so there is an absolute limit on how much grain can be produced in the world. We can increase yields with clever management, but we can never overcome the fact that there are limits. There will never be enough to feed all human mouths and all the world’s vehicles. When it comes to market competition between the fuel tanks of the wealthy nations and mouths of the hungry who cannot afford to pay much for food, it is obvious who will win. In this context, unrestricted biofuels can mean genocide.

The competition between vehicles and living space for orang-utans and other endangered wildlife is even more unequal. If we try to expand the area of available land to provide both food and fuels, what will give? It will be the few remaining wild areas, the areas of biodiversity and naturalness, with no votes and few to speak for them. Already we have lost so much old growth forest in South-east Asia and the Pacific because profits can be made from timber sales, from using the land to grow palm oil trees for biofuels, and from the palm kernel, which is used in our dairy industry as a supplementary feed on high-intensity farms. My colleague Catherine Delahunty has a bill waiting for its first reading that deals with the timber issue by prohibiting unsustainably logged timber from entering New Zealand and undercutting New Zealand foresters who log sustainably. This bill ensures that biofuel made from palm oil will not qualify for subsidy in New Zealand.

Yet we should not let those very serious risks blind us to the opportunities to make fuel from a range of agricultural and forestry wastes and low-value by-products. Sustainable options in New Zealand include tallow from meatworks, and ethanol from a range of agricultural and processing wastes including whey from the dairy industry. As technology matures in the future, fuels from our large quantity of wood waste would come from the forestry industry and from algae grown on sewage ponds with the double value of faster, better sewage treatment and fuel production.

The premier science journal Science has just published a year-long study by 11 specialists in technology, energy systems, climate, ecology, and policy development who resolved their initially differing positions and all agreed that “Biofuels can be produced in large quantities [in the US] and have multiple benefits, but only if they come from feedstocks produced with low life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions, as well as minimal competition with food production.” They list such feedstocks as including but not being limited to perennial plants grown on degraded land abandoned for agriculture, crop residues, sustainably harvested wood and forestry residues, double crops and mixed cropping systems of energy and food together, and municipal and industrial wastes.

That is why I indicated to the Labour Government last year that the Greens would not support its biofuel obligation legislation unless it contained clauses setting out criteria for sustainability. We worked together on the wording of those clauses and refined the bill at the select committee, and that wording was passed into law last year. The new Government does not support a mandatory obligation and it repealed the law, substituting a subsidy for biofuels. For ethanol, the subsidy is achieved by exempting those who produce ethanol from petrol excise tax, and for bio-diesel, which is most likely to be sold as a blend with petroleum fuels, there is a subsidy for the production of the fuel.

However, in repealing last year’s legislation, a new problem was created as sustainability criteria were repealed with it. Those involved in setting up a New Zealand industry are afraid that when they have committed the capital and have invested in doing the right thing, someone will undercut them by using soy beans, which could be feeding people, or palm oil grown by clearing tropical forests. I received a message from Lindsay Fergusson of Ecodiesel, a firm set up to make tallow and bio-diesel. He said “We feel there should be sustainability rules. It shouldn’t be left open to the industry how they feel about them. What is being proposed is perfectly reasonable, and the industry should have some standards around it.” I welcome his support. New Zealand’s clean, green reputation is too important to be besmirched by accusations that we are destroying forests and starving people, when we do not need to. Our big advantage is we have so much primary production self-generating the residues that can be used sustainably for fuel, although we must always remember that the quantity is not unlimited and we still need to take serious measures to use fuel more efficiently.

This bill amends the Energy (Fuels, Levies, and References) Act 1989 by adding the sustainability clauses with appropriate amendments that were law last year. Firstly, it requires that biofuels must show a substantial—not less than 35 percent—reduction in greenhouse gases compared with petroleum fuels. There is no reason we would go to all this trouble and expense to subsidise a fuel that leaves us hardly better off in terms of our greenhouse gas emissions. Fonterra raised the point with me that the whey used to make ethanol and sold to Gull Petroleum as a petrol extender may struggle at some times of the year to achieve that 35 percent reduction, depending on how much of the life cycle cost of milk production one attributes to the whey. I am very open to discussing at select committee whether fuels made from genuine waste products, which would create a disposal problem if not used for fuel, should have that condition relaxed. It was intended to stop scams like the US corn-to-ethanol industry, some of which creates more greenhouse gas to produce the ethanol than it saves in avoided petroleum.

The second requirement in the bill is that production of biofuel does not compete with food production. It specifies that by using a by-product from food production, such as tallow or whey, it does not contravene this provision and neither does oilseed grown in rotation with food crops. In this situation, the seedcake is used for animal feed so the competition with human food is minimal. Thirdly, the production of biofuel must not reduce biodiversity or adversely affect land of high conservation value.

It is not possible to specify in legislation a bright line to separate sustainable and unsustainable biofuels. The detail must be left to regulations. The regulation-making provision is in clause 4, which inserts new section 34C. Regulations will specify how to assess life cycle carbon emissions, how to determine whether land is suitable for food production, and how to define land of high conservation value. We know that those regulations can be drafted quickly, because they were well under way when the Government repealed the previous legislation. The previous Minister of Energy, David Parker, and I met with officials from the Ministry of Economic Development and the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority to discuss international precedents for such regulations and how quickly they could be achieved. Those regulations would probably be in place now if the legislation had not been repealed and work stopped, but it was very good to hear from the Minister earlier today that it has started again in preparation for the passing of this bill. I commend this bill to the House and I thank the Government for its support.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Energy and Resources) : The Government will support the Sustainable Biofuel Bill today. Work is going on in Government departments at the moment on what might be a voluntary scheme to establish proof that biofuels have been sustainably produced in New Zealand. It would then be a short step to look at how that may be prescribed in a regulation. I accept the call from the industry itself to protect what is effectively a domestic industry—and I do not like using that word too freely—to ensure that its integrity as a producer of sustainable biofuel is upheld.

I think it is worth noting that New Zealand consumes about 183,000 barrels of oil or fossil fuel every day. On a quick calculation, that means we are using about 280 million - odd litres of fossil fuel every day. This Sustainable Biofuel Bill becomes important in a very, very small sector of what might be fuel replacement for the future, because the programme that the Government introduced last year will see a subsidy becoming available for up to 60,000 litres a year by the time it reaches its final year of appropriation, and then the Government will need to make a decision about what happens from there.

My point is that 60,000 litres over a year compared with 280 million - odd litres being used a day means that this is very much a fledgling industry. In many ways it also encapsulates some of the points made by Jeanette Fitzsimons—that is, the amount of space that would be required to produce the sort of feedstock that we might get from vegetative material is, to say the least, enormous.

Why, then, encourage the industry? Second-generation biofuels present quite a different picture, and it will be a while before the world is at the point where those are easily produced. But I am very encouraged and impressed by what is happening with algae in the Nelson area of New Zealand, and a lot of work is being done internationally to look at what might be done with wood waste from forestry activities around the world, as well.

The other point I would make is that the fuel we currently use was at one point considered to be a bit of a waste product. For hundreds and hundreds of years no one really knew what to do with oil. It was something that one might burn to get a bit of heat out of it, but just 200 years ago the massive amount of use that we have for it at the moment was quite unheard of, and perhaps even unthought of. So we think that encouraging a biofuels industry in New Zealand at this point, as part of what will happen internationally, is worthwhile.

The standards that the bill puts up are pretty much the same requirements that were in the mandatory obligation bill that the Government repealed late last year. Our reason for repealing it at the time was that there were no sustainable standards in place. The idea was that they would be promulgated at around this time—in 2009, in the middle of the year—and at that point we could have consumed literally thousands of litres of biofuel that may well have come from unsustainable sources. Our other concern was that the cost of that to the economy would have been somewhere between 2c and 6c a litre, and it was not a cost that we were prepared to put upon motorists when there could be no certainty that the cost would do anything at all to improve the greenhouse gas emission levels from this country, let alone from any other country, particularly the countries where the biofuel might have come from. The three points that this bill wishes to insert into the consideration of our standards for biofuels will see New Zealand producers able to put a stamp on their product that guarantees the product is sustainably produced. In the long run that will, I think, be very good for the industry.

There are a few problems in the bill that I think I should give a bit of a heads-up on, not the least of which are some of the time lines that are in place. We would expect the select committee process to go on for some months and the bill then needs to come back to the House. Even though I expect the passage of this bill, when it does come back to the House, to be fairly quick, to have those sustainable standards effective from 1 January next year is a pretty big call. I hope that in conjunction with the consideration of this bill by the select committee there may be a work programme that can start with the officials in the Ministry for the Environment, the Ministry of Economic Development, and the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority to ensure that we are very, very close to meeting those dates. I know from discussions with the Green Party, with Jeanette Fitzsimons, that a collaborative approach will be possible on this issue.

I have one other question, though, that just struck me while I was listening to the member Jeanette Fitzsimons’ speech. It was to do with the comment that palm oil, for example, could be used for biofuel feedstock and that the kernel then could be used in New Zealand for food for dairy herds, perhaps. I am a little bit struck by the fact that at the moment the emissions from our farming activities present a problem for New Zealand. Our farmers are very good and very efficient. Their husbandry and use of pasture means that emissions from our farm animals are far less intensive and damaging than emissions from many other types of farming operation. But I ask what happens if the cow consumes that palm kernel and then emits the gases that all animals emit. Are they still considered to be totally noxious, totally negative, and totally inappropriate, or is the sustainable nature of the palm kernel industry such that it may get a different consideration? If that is the case, then I ask why our grasslands in New Zealand would not be considered in the same way. I see that Ms Fitzsimons is smiling because she knows that I am trying not to say the words that might be more expressive. It is either that, or I am so completely off-track here—

Grant Robertson: That’s quite likely.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The member says that is highly likely, but it does raise a very interesting question. The idea is that palm oil, effectively, can be made into biofuel and is carbon neutral. I presume that is the position Jeanette Fitzsimons would take.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Destroys the orang-utans and the forests. That’s what we’ve got against it.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Oh, the member is not in favour of those things.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: That’s why we’re not in favour.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Well, OK, I apologise. I misunderstood. It had me terribly worried that there was something new going on that I had missed. Palm oil, as we all know, is one of the great evils. It is a problem that a certain chocolate maker in New Zealand currently has because of the imported nature of its product these days.

I do not want to take much more of the House’s time, other than to say that if New Zealand is to have sustainable standards, then I hope that those standards are easily achievable by the industry. I will give a commitment at this stage to ask those who are responsible for developing these standards to work with the biofuel industry in New Zealand to ensure that we get workable arrangements and do not end up with the sort of wild bureaucracy that causes people to cut corners and causes questions to be asked about the veracity of the scheme in the first place. This move will be positive for the industry here. The Government has supported the industry with funding of $36 million over the next 3 years. That means that bio-diesel, effectively, will be treated the same as bio-ethanol, with the 42.5c subsidy on that production. As I said earlier in the House today, I am delighted that five of the companies in New Zealand producing biofuels have signed up with the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority to receive some of that subsidy, meaning that we can expect some 50,000 to 60,000 litres of biofuel to be produced in New Zealand this year. I think that is extremely encouraging. I look forward to the easy passage of this bill through the House today, and then to a collaborative select committee process to ensure that, as we are determined to have these regulations, they are as workable as possible.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before I call the next member, the remaining speeches will be of 5-minutes duration. I will ring a bell when there is 1 minute to go.

MOANA MACKEY (Labour) : I ask the Minister Gerry Brownlee, who has just resumed his seat, why, if he loves these standards so much, he voted to repeal them before Christmas. We had these standards in legislation, we worked long and hard at the Local Government and Environment Committee to develop them, we worked very hard to ensure that a process was set out whereby an Order in Council process would detail these standards, and we passed them into law. If this Government had not repealed the previous Government’s biofuel obligation—there was a date in that legislation of 1 July 2009, and our officials had told us that they could make that date—we would already be there.

Our officials told us that they would have to work hard but they said they believed it could be done, or if they needed more time it would be only a little bit more, and it was entirely appropriate that the Minister should have to come to the House to explain why it was taking longer than expected and what the new time frame would be. So we would already be there. It is a bit rich for National members to stand up now and go on about what a great bill this is—and I think it is a good bill—when this is the legislation they repealed before Christmas, saying it was the worst piece of law that they had ever seen.

Hon Georgina te Heuheu: We are entitled to take stock and decide where we want to go.

MOANA MACKEY: Georgina te Heuheu says that they have now taken stock and realised they were wrong. I thank the honourable Minister for admitting that the National Government was wrong in repealing this legislation in the first place. That is the first honest admission we have seen.

I want to thank the member Jeanette Fitzsimons for bringing this bill to the House. It is like seeing an old friend again because it was not that long ago that we were working at select committee to draw up these standards, and I want to acknowledge the role that the Green member on the committee, Metiria Turei, played in that process. An awful lot of work, not only at select committee but outside select committee hours, went into getting this legislation to a point where everyone was comfortable and felt that we were allowing only the sustainable forms of biofuel that were already being produced in New Zealand to go ahead. But at the same time, we were doing as much as possible to shut off the avenues to non-sustainable sources.

The member Nick Smith, who was on that committee, criticised us. He said there were no sustainability standards in it because they had not come into force, but the submitters who came to the select committee told us that as long as the committee gave them a clear steer so that they knew what they were going to be dealing with then that was fine—as long as they were given as much forewarning about what those standards were going to include. Let us be honest, what is in the legislation is extremely detailed. In fact a group of parliamentarians from the European Parliament came to look at what we had done because they were so impressed and thought we had found a really good way through. We gave a clear steer to industry about what would be expected of it once the Order in Council and the regulations were drafted, and that is what it asked for.

I have to say that it is good if we can get biofuel producers on board and the companies that produce bio-diesel. But those companies also supported the biofuel obligation that the previous Government put in, which did not cost taxpayers $36 million. That is what I find astounding, because every day in the House we hear from National members that they have no money to fund things like helping mums on the domestic purposes benefit get off the benefit and into work. They say they have no money for adult and community courses, and no money for new early childhood centres, but somehow there was $36 million for subsidies for biofuels to produce an outcome that the biofuel obligation did for free.

We had legislation in place, and let me point out that one oil company in New Zealand was already providing biofuel and had been doing so for a long time. Another oil company, when the legislation was introduced into the House, started putting biofuel into its mixes because of the legislation. It saw the writing on the wall, so it automatically did that voluntarily before the legislation came into place. So we had people moving down the path before the legislation was even passed. We looked at the target in the bill, and we dropped it down to the level at which we knew it could be supplied by New Zealand providers, from sustainable sources. We were very reasonable, but it was about producing a market for those companies and they were very grateful for that—and it did not cost the taxpayers $36 million.

I am astounded that National seems to think that subsidies for these companies, when we are in a recession and we are fighting over every scrap of money, is the most important way to go rather than keeping in place the biofuel obligation that was there, that provided a market, that the oil companies were already moving towards doing, and, most important, that cost the taxpayers of New Zealand nothing—zero. I look forward to the next National speaker explaining how National can justify $36 million in subsidies for something that was already happening for free under the previous Government.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman) : I think I said last time I was speaking in the Chamber what a pleasure it is to follow Moana Mackey. It gives the opportunity to respond to the requests she makes for explanations for better understanding and that sort of thing. But I will speak about the bill that is before the House, the Sustainable Biofuel Bill. Moana Mackey spoke about a bill that was before the House when Labour was in Government and was then repealed. I did not hear her speak about the Sustainable Biofuel Bill, which is such a good bill.

I will speak about the Sustainable Biofuel Bill, which was submitted in the name of Jeanette Fitzsimmons. It was most interesting to hear its introduction.

Hon Member: Fitzsimons.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: Fitzsimons—exactly. I beg the member’s pardon. I thought there was a double “m” in her name; my apologies to the member. It is without doubt that biofuels will play a big role in our energy mix in the future. The Government is supporting the bill going to the select committee. I believe that it is important that this issue gets debated robustly and calmly, and that the select committee gets to hear expert opinions and can come up with some clear recommendations on that basis.

I listened to Moana Mackey’s speech and—oh, gosh—it was interesting, but, as I said, it reflected backwards and not forwards. It is time to get over it, I say to Moana. But I enjoyed hearing the introduction from Jeanette Fitzsimons and noted with interest—

Moana Mackey: What a waste of Parliament’s time and money passing the same law we repealed last year.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: I ask the member to just let me get to the point she asked about, and all will be revealed—her answers will be given. There really is an important difference between the two bills. The member knows there is an important difference and will probably like it not to be voiced, but I will voice it.

First of all, I will take up the point Jeanette made in relation to needing a balance between food production and fuel production, because it really can create, and already has created, distortions in the world. I still have a point of concern when I hear people saying we have so much available tallow at cheap prices. We do not, in my understanding of it—and I was involved in exporting for a long time—have a surplus of tallow anywhere. So if we start to use these products for different purposes from what they are currently being used for—it is a by-product, a waste product, and all the rest of it, but it currently makes a hang of a lot of soap in Third World countries and throughout the Pacific—we will be pushing up the price of those products. We simply cannot think that we will not have an effect by making changes.

I will outline a couple of points showing the good work this National-led Government has already done in the area of biofuels. Members of this House might remember—and certainly Moana Mackey remembers very clearly—that after the election this Government repealed the biofuel legislation that required fuel companies to progressively introduce biofuel blends into their fuel mix. We heard the warnings being given by Jeanette Fitzsimons on what happens when we introduce compulsion. One of the major reasons we repealed that legislation was that it mandated the introduction of biofuels. National believes that biofuels should be introduced through companies responding to commercial, environmental, and marketing considerations, not because the Government compels it to. One of the lessons Labour surely must learn is that if one tries to compel things all the time, one will lose the opportunity. Wow! And what is happening? People are taking up biofuels from a commercial point of view.

We have some concerns about the Sustainable Biofuel Bill. The bill requires an Order in Council to be made by 1 February 2010. That will be ahead of international consensus around biofuels sustainability, so New Zealand will be moving ahead of international developments. One problem with that is that there is no internationally agreed standard for what constitutes sustainability. We do not want to get back into the position of aspirational targets, such as the memorable target of the previous Government when it blithely said New Zealand would be carbon neutral, without actually working out how it might happen.

In essence, I believe that the bill should be moved to the select committee. The bill deals with important issues, which is why National supports it. Thank you.

CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) : It is clear that the world has to do something to end its doomed love affair with oil. It is a pervasive aspect of our society, from our cars to even bottled-water bottles. Petroleum products in vehicle engines contribute massively to carbon emissions and environmental degradation, at a time when we are all clear about the need to deal with that challenge through action both personally and as a country. We just do not know when oil is going to run out, but we do know that as it becomes more scarce, prices will rise, and that will affect all of us everywhere.

We need better alternatives to carbon-based energy, and one fantastic alternative is the use of biofuels, whereby energy is drawn from much more environmentally friendly sources than the petroleum we have allowed ourselves as a society to become hooked on. But we need to make sure that biofuels sources are environmentally sustainable. Biofuels are drawn from crops such as corn, which is used to produce ethanol, and there are problems with that in the US. We have seen massive price distortions as a result. But biofuels can also be drawn from other plant sources or animal sources to produce bio-diesel or biogas. They can even come from waste cooking oil from McDonald’s. But the crops and lands used for biofuels production are also used for food production, and the Sustainable Biofuel Bill addresses that problem.

Before the great global economic meltdown, the world experienced what The Economist magazine called a “silent tsunami”, with rising food prices and shortages. The race to get on to the biofuels bandwagon was a contributor to the “silent tsunami” that The Economist referred to. So we need biofuels that are sustainable and produced sustainably.

The problem we have here, however, is one that Moana Mackey alluded to: all this could have been in place already. It is very annoying and very frustrating for members on this side of the House—and it must also be frustrating for the sponsor of this bill, who negotiated hard to get the provisions in the repealed legislation—that this House is having to legislate twice, once to repeal legislation under urgency before Christmas, and now this bill, for which we have had to wait months, to replace it.

And what are we dealing with in terms of replacement proposals? As Moana Mackey said, it is a massive multimillion-dollar payment to industry, which is a total waste of scarce taxpayers’ money in the current recessionary environment. It was interesting to hear the previous speaker, Chris Auchinvole, talk about the market working. Well, if this is an example of the market working—because it gets a $36 million taxpayer subsidy—I am sure a whole lot of other parts of New Zealand would like to have a bit more market. But I do not think we will be seeing that sort of approach extended to those who really are in need.

In the meantime, while we have been waiting, this legislation could have been in place, as Moana Mackey said, on 1 July. Instead, we will have to wait until 1 May 2010. In the meantime, jobs have been lost—we have seen that as a matter of public record—in entities that were relying on the biofuels obligation to make producing biofuels onshore domestically sustainable.

Nevertheless, we are here, and, certainly, Labour members welcome the bill. We are committed to seeing its passage through all stages in the House, if the numbers required can be achieved. Although I heard Mr Brownlee say that the Government will support it being referred to a select committee, and the ambition then, as I understand it, is to merge the work being done by officials with submissions on this legislation, Labour is happy to commit to seeing this legislation pass through all its stages, if the numbers can be achieved. This is effectively, as Moana Mackey said, a re-enactment of legislation agreed between Labour and the Greens prior to the last election.

We need the bill, as I have said. It will be an important complementary measure to the emissions trading scheme, when that scheme finally is confirmed by this Parliament, in terms of the tool box that we need to reduce emissions. The bill will be an important part of making sure that we have a balance between food production and fuel production, and it will be a very important contributor to that vital principle in which we all believe: encouraging biodiversity. With those concluding comments, I welcome this bill.

RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga) : I am really pleased to be able to stand in support of the Sustainable Biofuel Bill, which amends the relevant legislation in order to ensure that biofuels supplied or sold in New Zealand from 1 May 2010 are sustainable. The Māori Party supported the Biofuel Bill that introduced the biofuel sales obligation, and we subsequently opposed the bill introduced in the early days of this Government to repeal that bill. In light of the repeal bill, we were really pleased when Minister Brownlee announced, as part of Budget 2009, that $36 million was available for a new grants programme for bio-diesel production. We saw this programme as a great opportunity for rural marae communities to showcase their ability to use their traditional social and industry systems to be key players in the emerging biofuels industry.

I take a particular interest in the development of biofuels. One of my iwi, Ngāti Kōata, is in the process of establishing a biofuels plant. Our original intention was that we would sell the biofuels to users of static machinery such as school boilers. We started off looking for tallow but we realised that there are uncertainties around its supply, so we are now investigating other sources. Of course, we are not the only iwi who have invested in biofuel manufacturing infrastructure. Taharoa C Block incorporation came to the Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee and shared their experience, including the development of the miscanthus species for biofuel production from marginal land, which they considered to be a very promising biofuel project. This bill, then, has the potential to make an important contribution to climate change initiatives to help provide options for employment and to express energy rangatiratanga.

We are very interested in being involved in the interpretation of what sustainable biofuel is, which the bill recommends should be made by regulation by 1 February 2010. The definition of exactly what we mean by sustainability is the crux of the issue. We all know that importing biofuels is problematic, given that fuel is required to transport the biofuel, in addition to the fuel required to create the biofuel. As the price of oil rises, so too does the relative price of energy alternatives. We are concerned that the word “sustainability” can be tossed around, perhaps carelessly, as though merely using the word is sufficient to create a sustainable society.

We have been interested in the view of Dr Albert Bartlett, head of physics at the University of Colorado at Boulder. Dr Bartlett’s analysis leads us to look again at the concept of sustainable growth, in the sense of endlessly increasing. Of course, because the resources are not unlimited, there is not an open-ended supply. The finite size of resources, ecosystems, the environment, and the Earth leads to the most fundamental truth of sustainability: that, in fact, the term “sustainable growth” is an oxymoron. So although we support this bill and the principles of sustainable biofuels, we must do much more than adjusting a regulation on paper; we must look anew at the way we approach environmental management, the efficient use of water, and the conservation of energy. The Māori Party has constantly promoted the importance of reducing our dependence on oil by strategies to reuse, recycle, repair, respect, replace, and trade locally. We must do all that we can to support the development of renewable and sustainable energy resources in order to protect and preserve limited resources such as oil, gas, and coal.

This bill is an important step along the journey, but we stress that it is only a small step. Biofuel energy production is not energy production. With or without biofuels, the critical fact is that we need to radically change how we live. A safe, environmentally sound, and economically viable energy pathway that will sustain human progress into the distant future must be the horizon we all seek to achieve, and we must start to do something about it now. In that spirit, we give our support to this bill and thank Jeanette Fitzsimons for her proactive initiative in putting it forward. Kia ora.

KEVIN HAGUE (Green) : I made my own biofuels sustainability decision in the last couple of weeks, which was to cease my consumption of Cadbury’s chocolate. Those who know me will know that that was quite a major step to take. Gerry Brownlee referred to Cadbury’s use of palm oil in its chocolate, and members on all sides in this debate have referred to the attendant risks around the displacement of forests, around biodiversity, and around food.

In a sense, this debate comes down to a core issue that is frequently the cause of disagreements in this House, and that is the question of how best to achieve a change to the goods and services we all use. There are three basic approaches: one is regulation, one is consumer choice, and one is a weighted consumer choice where we stack the odds through subsidies or other means, such as social marketing, to make one choice more attractive than another. The Green Party makes its selection in terms of the most appropriate of those approaches on an issue-by-issue basis.

Very frequently, the criterion for deciding on that is the relative balance of the public good and the personal good in the outcome of the change. The issue of country-of-origin labelling on foods, for example, is one where we have campaigned for consumer choice. We have said that there needs to be mandatory labelling on foods so that consumers are able to make that choice and so that we can achieve the outcome we are all seeking. Of course, there is a public interest aspect in that, but overwhelmingly that is less important than the personal interests of the consumer. So consumer choice is an appropriate approach in that case. On the other hand, an issue like the food that is for sale in schools is an issue where public interest clearly outweighs the personal interest, and it is important to take a regulatory approach, establishing rules and standards.

On the issue that is before us, we are facing a crisis in the world. The issue about the energy we use for transportation is but a small part of how we address that crisis. Members have already alluded to two aspects: climate change, where it is imperative that we do all that is in our power to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions; and the end of cheap oil, where it is incumbent upon us to find ways to make the best possible use of a scarce resource.

In this area of energy for transportation, people have talked for years about hydrogen cars as being our salvation. That talk seems to have dissipated somewhat, and now we are talking about electric cars. Certainly, there is a lot of value in electric cars, but they will take a long time to implement.

I want to talk about the choices before us now and how we can encourage change in goods and services in this particular area. The public interest in sustainability, in ensuring that we retain biodiversity, and in reducing our greenhouse gases to the maximum extent demand a regulatory approach. I commend members from the Government side for their change of heart on this front. It is great to see that there seems to be consensus in this House that this bill is a timely one, and I look forward to its passage.

NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) : I am pleased to support the Sustainable Biofuel Bill. I acknowledge what Kevin Hague said about consensus on this issue. One thing I am proud of is that this Government has been able to build relationships across the political spectrum, not only with the Greens but also with the Māori Party, ACT, and United Future. I want to take a moment to recognise the memorandum of understanding we have with the Green Party that covers home insulation, energy efficiency, and the regulation of natural health products. I also acknowledge the work Kevin Hague has done in terms of the cycleways to ensure that many New Zealanders will have the opportunity to ride them in the future.

The important question in this bill is, what is a sustainable biofuel? That is a debate I am glad we will be able to have in the select committee process, and that is why I am supporting this bill. It is important to talk a bit about the history. In 2008 the previous Government passed the Biofuel Bill. The bill required fuel companies to progressively introduce biofuel blends into the fuel mix in increasing incremental amounts to 2.5 percent of total energy by 2012. Many people called it a biofuels sales obligation. An important point about this legislation is that decisions about which type of biofuel was to be supplied, how much it was blended with fossil fuels, and where it came from would have been up to the industry.

Members opposite have asked for the reasons why we opposed that bill. We opposed it for three particular reasons. We opposed it firstly because we believed that it was mandating the introduction of biofuels, and that was a philosophical point. We did not believe that biofuels should be introduced because the Government was forcing people to do it, but because Governments were responding to commercial, environmental, and market considerations rather than that sense of compulsion. The other reason why we opposed it was we believed that the bill the previous Government put forward would have loaded uncertain costs on to consumers. The evidence from the oil companies that came to the Local Government and Environment Committee was that meeting the obligation, when fully implemented, would add anywhere from 2c to 8c a litre to the cost of fuel. That is why we opposed it.

One thing we are very proud of, and the Minister has talked a lot about it today, is the bio-diesel grants scheme. The key point that we signalled was that we were concerned about the unequal tax treatment between bio-ethanol and bio-diesel. National promised this at the election, and, along with the many good policies this Government has implemented, we have delivered on it. There is $36 million over 3 years to provide a 42.5c per litre grant to produce bio-diesel fuel. I am really pleased that five companies are set to take part. The companies are using a range of sustainable feedstocks to produce bio-diesel, such as tallow, used cooking oil, and rapeseed grown as a break crop. The important thing to note is that the scheme will help to increase the fuel choices available for New Zealand consumers and businesses.

The whole issue, and I acknowledge what members on the other side are saying, is that what we have in this legislation is a first start. I look forward to the select committee looking further at the principles that the Greens have put into this bill. I think it is a really important debate to have about what exactly is a sustainable biofuel, and I acknowledge Rahui Katene’s comments in that regard. We have to do better as a country, in terms of the environment. One good point that Kevin Hague made is that biofuels are part of the argument, but we also have to think more about things like electric cars. Yes, they will serve only a certain number of people, but I think public transport is an important part of this debate about reducing car usage. Biofuels are part of this debate, but so is our use of cars in New Zealand. We have to think more about that, and I am very proud that at the election I supported integrated ticketing. The other day the Government announced that the New Zealand Transport Agency is moving forward. We have seen some significant progress in the area of integrated ticketing, and I really hope that that can be delivered under this Government because we want to encourage more people to use public transport.

This bill is another step the Government is taking that will, in my view, lead to a better and cleaner New Zealand. I am very pleased to be supporting the Green Party. This is another example of the Government working with parties across the House.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) : This debate would be laughable were it not so serious. I cannot believe the contribution we heard from the previous speaker, Nikki Kaye. She stood there and defended the fact—as if it was a good thing—that National is now voting for the same legislation it refused to support 8 months ago, and then 6 months ago repealed. The Sustainable Biofuel Bill is the very same legislation. There is no difference. It is an illustration of how absolutely incompetent Gerry Brownlee is as the Minister of Energy and Resources. All of these issues were pointed out to him and his Government when they repealed these very same provisions 6 months ago. These provisions are not different in some sort of minor but principled way; they are the same provisions.

During the last election Gerry Brownlee ran campaigns based on the nanny State. Somehow it was nanny State to tell oil companies that they had to incorporate sustainable biofuels in their fuel. Somehow it was better to subsidise it to the tune of $36 million, and not necessarily get the same outcome! Today in the House we heard Gerry Brownlee say that BioDiesel Oils (NZ) Ltd is one of the recipients of the new subsidy scheme. I tell members that I ran into Sue Wood on Monday of this very week as I flew into Wellington. Sue Wood, who is a former president of the National Party, was deeply ashamed that the National Party had ruined the business and effectively put at risk the life-savings of some very decent New Zealanders involved in these fledgling biofuels companies. One company was producing the world’s most sustainable biofuels, as measured by the UN according to sustainability of fuel stock, non-competition with food production, and low greenhouse gas emissions on a life-cycle basis. That company was brought to its knees by the Government’s decision to remove the mandatory obligation on oil companies.

I asked whether the subsidy fixed the problem and she said that they did not know. The reality is that it does not make the oil companies purchase biofuel. It is still a hassle for oil companies to blend biofuels in with their traditional fuel stocks, and they do not want to do it. So even with a $36 million subsidy, we may not be bringing forward the most sustainable biofuels that the world has, and that New Zealand has in a higher proportion to population than any other country in the world. Gerry Brownlee comes to the House and says that this is good policy. He says that wasting $36 million of Government money on this programme is good spending. It is ludicrous. We heard the prior speaker say that it would have cost between 2c and 8c per litre under the mandatory obligation. National members know that that is wrong. The advice from the officials and from biofuels producers is that the cost would have been about 1c per litre. They are making an eightfold exaggeration as to cost.

I return to the reasons that we need sustainability provisions. It is clear that not all biofuels are good, and it is clear that not all biofuels are bad. It is clear that biofuels are part of the solution to greenhouse gas emissions from transport, and that we should be bringing forward sustainable biofuels. Because the Government repealed the sustainability provisions in the law, we can currently import unsustainable biofuels. This legislation fixes that, and I thank Jeanette Fitzsimons for bringing it through. She has more patience with Gerry Brownlee than I have; they are the same arguments and it is the same legislation. I am somewhat surprised that we are seeing such a complete turn-round from Gerry Brownlee. It is a bit like saying we cannot have energy-efficient light bulbs because that is the nanny State. It is interesting that in the last month or so Consumer magazine has come out and said that we were exactly right and National was wrong.

New Zealand’s transport emissions are now on the way down. They went down 4 percent last year and they were static in the prior year partly because of public transport. We need biofuels to do even better. Electricity emissions are going down and deforestation emissions are down, yet National is saying that it is the be-all and end-all when it comes to climate change policy. This is another example of National’s incompetence. I am pleased, though, that this legislation is about to pass its first reading today.

JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Green) : I would like to thank all of the members of the House who have spoken in support of the Sustainable Biofuel Bill. It is very satisfying that it appears that the bill may go through unanimously. The ACT Party has not spoken, but every other party has spoken in support of the bill and I thank them for that.

A couple of things came up in debate that I would like to set right. The claim was made by Chris Auchinvole, as has been made many times before, that the tallow in New Zealand is currently exported and made into soap in China, and that if we do not do that then soap will be made from less sustainable things. Well, I have good news for members: it is the glycerol in the tallow that is made into soap. The glycerol is a by-product from turning tallow into bio-diesel, so we can turn the tallow into bio-diesel here, be left with the glycerol, and export that to China to be made into soap. So it is a win-win solution, like most of the things that the Greens propose.

It was a concern that when the previous legislation was repealed, the officials adjusted New Zealand’s expected carbon emissions in 2020 upwards, to adjust for the fact that there would not be biofuels being used in New Zealand to reduce those emissions. I hope that the combination of this bill and the Government’s policy means that those emissions can be adjusted again.

We have heard tonight a debate mainly about the philosophical arguments between National and Labour about whether mandatory standards are better or worse than subsidies. That is a philosophical, political debate, and the parties have an absolute right to debate that. But what has happened, as has happened so often before, is that sustainability has once again slipped through the cracks of that argument between those on the right and on the left. I do not want members to get me wrong. I tell them the Greens do have a view on that issue, and it includes a concern that, as David Parker has said, even with a subsidy local producers may still find they do not have a stable market, because if oil prices continue to fluctuate wildly it will sometimes be economic to buy biofuel and sometimes not economic. That means that local producers may not be able to sell it stably, and therefore they may not invest in the industry. So we do have the problem that the measure might not be effective.

But that is not the issue here today. The issue is about how to make sure that any biofuels that we do use are sustainable, and on that we seem to have agreement right across the House. It is another issue where the Greens sold a policy to the Labour members last year, helped to develop it cooperatively with them, saw the legislation be repealed, then sold it to National after the election. I thank both parties for accepting the importance of the issue. We have actually brokered an agreement across the House without National or Labour ever having to talk to each other about it, and we now have general agreement that biofuels should be sustainable, in much the same way that we have brokered agreement between Labour and National that home insulation is worth investing in. We are pleased to play that role.

I thank everybody for their comments on the bill tonight. I look forward to getting it back as quickly as possible. I do not think the Local Government and Environment Committee will need to take very long to consider the bill, because it has already considered the exact wording that is in the bill, has helped to develop it, and is thoroughly familiar with it—or at least the members who are still on the committee are—and I am sure that it will not take the committee very long to decide it is a good thing to put the legislation back in force. I look forward to the bill coming back to the House and passing into law.

• Bill read a first time.

• Bill referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee.

METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) : I move, That the Marine Animals Protection Law Reform Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the Marine Animals Protection Law Reform Bill be considered by the Local Government and Environment Committee. Before I begin my talk on this bill, let us have a look at what kinds of marine animals we are talking about. The photo I am holding up shows eight dead Hector’s dolphins. They are the second-most endangered species of dolphin in this country. The other side of the photo shows dead sea-mammals, a fur seal, and a sea lion. Other photos show dead albatross, killed by the fishing industry and found by observers on fishing industry boats.

These are the kinds of marine animals I refer to in my bill. They are absolutely protected species under the Wildlife Act, but they fail to get any real protection because of the legislative mess of our Marine Mammals Protection Act. My bill is an attempt to resolve some of that mess so that those animals—albatross, Hector’s dolphins, Hooker’s sea lions, fur seals, and Māui’s dolphins—achieve some degree of protection by our community. All of those animals have died as a result of poor industry regulation and failed legislative protection. Those marine animals are not the only kinds at threat. New Zealand has half of the world’s whales and dolphins present in its waters, including the rare southern right whale and the endemic dolphin species. New Zealand sea lions are found only in our southern waters, as is the more wide-ranging kekeno, or New Zealand fur seal. We are known as the seabird capital of the world. A third of the 84 seabird species that breed here are found only in Aotearoa, and half of the world’s albatross species circle our waters. The critically endangered Māui’s dolphin numbers just 111. Only 36 fairy tern individuals hang on to survival in this country. Up to 10,000 albatross and petrels drown on tuna longlines each year in New Zealand waters. In the last breeding season, 600 New Zealand sea-lion females failed to return, and a third fewer pups were born as a result.

With many marine animal populations declining, and the eyes of our export markets watching us, this is a crucial time to boost biodiversity protection and ensure a sustainable future for our ocean. The international journal Conservation Biology recently published a report entitled Major Conservation Policy Issues for Biodiversity in Oceania. The report was compiled by 14 scientists, including two from New Zealand—one from the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research and one from the Department of Conservation. In that report the lead author, Professor Richard Kingsford of the University of New South Wales, described the Pacific region as having the notorious distinction of having possibly the worst extinction record on earth. Species are threatened by habitat loss and degradation, invasive species, climate change, overexploitation, pollution, and wildlife disease.

Today we will see the National Government allow those threats to continue unabated, because National intends to vote against the protection of marine animals. This bill poses a very serious problem for the supposed Bluegreens group within the National Party. Before the 2008 election Dr Nick Smith, a key leader of the Bluegreens group, said: “Further deterioration in [Hector’s and Maui] populations must be halted … If it is a choice between fishers’ rights and dolphins’ survival, the dolphins must come first.” But the Bluegreens, whether or not they are led by Nick Smith, clearly have no influence over their Government. As a group of environmentalists within National they are clearly impotent. I am truly sorry about that. I have met with Bluegreen members around the country, and I know they are passionate and committed to achieving environmental and conservation gains. But they operate within a party that will simply use them for “greenwash”, because that is what the Bluegreens have become, through National’s failure to protect marine animals.

There is no doubt that National members tonight will make the false argument of environment versus economy. That is their mantra. It demonstrates an extraordinary economic deficit in their thinking, although it is a common one from Governments, I must say. One comment from the lead author of the conservation report I referred to stated: “The biggest problem seems to be that the policy challenges are just not being taken up by governments. Conservation policies are just seen as a problem for the economy,”. But that is clearly not the case, especially in the context of the protection of marine animals. Marine tourism is estimated to generate more than $100 million a year to New Zealand. The fishing industry is under increasing pressure from our markets to reduce its environmental impact. The New Zealand brand itself is at risk. Just last week it was reported that “The upmarket grocery chain Waitrose has refused to stock hoki because the ‘destructive’ method of bottom trawling did not fit with its sustainable suppliers programme.” The hoki fishery is worth $151 million in exports to New Zealand.

Hon Steve Chadwick: Well, that’s it, isn’t it?

METIRIA TUREI: That is right.

If we are to sustain our economy in difficult times, we must invest now in measures to protect the natural resources on which our economy is based. The green new deal argument for greater conservation measures is clear, and even the notably disengaged—I have to say—Minister of Conservation, Tim Groser, thinks so.

Hon Steve Chadwick: Who?

METIRIA TUREI: Yes. He recently said: “Biodiversity has positive economic value and removing or degrading it, threatens the ecosystem it supports … Tourism focused on marine mammal experiences, for example, must be monitored and controlled to ensure the animals are protected and the business opportunity endures.” Even the Prime Minister has waxed lyrical about this, saying: “Our environment is a huge part of our brand … The Government will work to protect the resources that tourism providers rely on—clean air, clean water, and unique landscapes.” Well, I say to the Prime Minister that that may be the case, but clearly National believes its own effort will result in clean air without seabirds and albatross, clean water without sea lions and Māui’s dolphins, and landscapes without little blue penguins and fairy terns. In short, it is a nice clean environment completely devoid of unique New Zealand marine species on which that brand is dependent.

My bill provides just one option for how to reform our legislative tools to provide greater protection for marine animals such as those in the photos I have held up—Hector’s dolphins, the albatross, and the sea lions. My bill is quite technical in that it alters three different Acts—the Marine Mammals Protection Act, the Fisheries Act, and the Wildlife Act—in order to strengthen definitions, to set clear objectives and principles for protection, and to require proper monitoring. It alters the relative powers of the Minister of Conservation and the Minister of Fisheries in developing population management plans. My bill is no threat, nor is it perfect, but it would have given Parliament the opportunity to tweak the laws that are meant to be protecting our marine mammals and sea birds. It is quite obvious from the photos I have shown that those laws are not working.

The direct interactions of marine animals with human activities on the sea—like fishing, mining, and tourism—can be managed directly through legislation. The Marine Mammals Protection Act is designed to do that, but, unfortunately, it has not—in part, because it is subservient to the Fisheries Act. The powerful tool of population management plans in the Marine Mammals Protection Act has yet to be used in this country. Too much power lies with the Minister of Fisheries and a Fisheries Act that is biased towards utilisation. This is the position that National clearly favours, to the detriment of our $100 million marine tourism industry, to the detriment of access to the global markets from industries, and to the detriment of vulnerable New Zealand marine species, which are at real risk of extinction under a National Government. The Bluegreens should hang their heads in shame. In anticipation of the support of the Labour Party, Progressive, and the Māori Party, I acknowledge that those parties have all agreed to provide their support for this bill and to the marine animals that are so clearly in desperate need of protection. I commend the bill to the House.

COLIN KING (National—Kaikōura) : The Marine Animals Protection Law Reform Bill is respected as a genuine attempt to address some of the anomalies that continue to occur around, especially, our oceans. The Government certainly gives considerable respect to the intentions of the bill. However, there are two reasons why we will not support it. The legislation can always be improved, but the National Government prefers consultation with the industry and sector groups to deliver those improvements, rather than regulating these pieces.

Hon Steve Chadwick: The member knows that doesn’t happen.

COLIN KING: The previous Government—and we hear its members now on the other side of the House—took every opportunity to regulate. A phrase was coined that we ended up with the “nanny State”. On the other hand, the National Government would prefer to work with industry to ensure the protection of marine life, rather than to regulate it.

I will come back a couple of steps. My parliamentary secretary gave me a wonderful book on albatrosses, and I must admit that it is incredibly gut-wrenching and soul-destroying to see one of those magnificent creatures dragged aboard a boat, dead. But I also balance the debate by talking about a Marlborough fisherman. I will not mention his name. After the best endeavours of officials and bureaucrats to regulate, he was put into an exceptionally dangerous position where he was duly hooked by one of his lines and dragged under because he was applying rules and regulations that in actual fact did not give any consideration whatsoever to the risks that were involved. Basically, our first reason for not supporting the bill is that the National Government prefers consultation with industry sectors to deliver improvements.

The second reason for not supporting the bill is a bit more of a complex one. The National Government agrees that more needs to be done; however, we believe that we will not achieve that solely through legislation. It would make more sense to look at the whole issue, as opposed to just the pieces of it. I leave those comments for people to consider. There is no doubt about it. The Government is aware that we have to lift our game. As I mentioned, it needs to be in a complete set of circumstances. The bill itself is highly technical. We have some concern that it will be hard to enforce, given the massive geographical size of New Zealand’s responsibilities on the oceans.

I will read one particular part of the bill that I think should focus our attention on how difficult it is to ensure there is that balance between risk and management, the needs of the Department of Conservation and the Ministry of Fisheries, and so forth. The proposed new section 2A of the Marine Mammals Protection Act 1978 talks about ensuring that “human-induced mortalities of marine mammals are reduced to insignificant levels, approaching zero, within 20 years of the coming into force of Part 1 …”. Nobody in this House would disagree with the sentiment of that new section in clause 5 of Part 1. Basically, that is where we are all aiming to go. The concern the National Government raises, respectfully, to the member in charge of this bill—and we appreciate the bill’s intention—is about the effects it will have on the present day-to-day operations of things. I think that in this House we are long past doing things that basically pass the ball, as it were, to the Department of Conservation to do stuff in the oceans. We are not talking about just sea mammals. We are talking about marine animals, and we have a huge inventory of those particular animals. There are issues. In New Zealand we could probably enforce it upon ourselves, but then again it would be highly disruptive.

When we look at the process going forward, I do not disregard the photographs that the Green member Metiria Turei held up in the House earlier. I also introduce the fact that whenever a member is emailed and lobbied on whether he or she will support a bill, it is not done flippantly; it is done in a considered way. There are some outstanding testimonies to our going forward in a significant way. I quote such things as the Kaikōura dusky dolphin tourism research project, which has been going on for 2½ years. It has measured the impact of tourism on dolphins, and it will be released at the Takahanga Marae next Monday. It is hugely significant to Kaikōura. It has a huge economic value. It has been entered into in a way that one could call collegial, constructive, and consultative. I believe that way forward, which the Government has adopted, is the best way.

We also have in place—and it was put in place by the previous Government—the set-net ban. We also have the ban on fishing of blue cod in Marlborough. These are quite positive things. We have the Perano family and a collection of people doing whale counting out of Cook Strait. We have the re-seeding of pāua, the research and development that is going into replenishing crayfish and suchlike, and the wonderful model of collaboration and discussion that has emanated out of the Marlborough Sounds, where the group Guardians of the Sounds has put together a balanced and publicly agreed outcome around managing a resource in a sustainable way.

Although we have the utmost respect for the intentions of the bill, we see National’s preference as one for consultation with the industry sectors to bring them along together. I would really like to underscore that it is the easiest thing—and I have seen this House do it so many times—to put legislation in place, and then wash one’s hands of it. I do not see that as being a permanent, enduring solution, and I do not see that that will have the best long-term effect on New Zealand’s economy in the future. I commend the intention of the member who is in charge of the bill, Metiria Turei. I reiterate, for the record, the reason why we are not supporting this bill. It is because National prefers consultation with industry and sector groups to deliver those improvements. Finally, we believe that significant progress is being made, there is a long time to go in this term, and the National Government is in a good position to do it. We are about building bridges, relationships, and trust. It would make far more sense if we were to consider this matter as a whole, as opposed to looking at it piece by piece.

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

Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour) : As the previous Minister of Conservation I am very pleased to take a call on the Marine Animals Protection Law Reform Bill. It was interesting to hear the speaker just before dinner, Colin King, talking about the Bluegreens and their lauding of principles of sustainability and species protection, yet saying that National will not vote for the bill. This bill is one of the most robust pieces of legislation on marine protection to come before the House.

I will mention some of the achievements of the Labour Government. Species protection, which this bill is all about, is one plank of sustainability, but the other was how we looked after the marine environment and created four new marine mammal sanctuaries for the protection of Hector’s and Māui’s dolphins. The National Opposition at the time we brought in that legislation told us that it was pathetic, that it was not good enough, and that we needed to do more. Yet here they are in the House tonight voting against very good legislation put forward by Metiria Turei.

We also looked at marine protected areas and announced in 2008 a whole network around New Zealand of 14 coastal regions, which created a whole network of marine protected areas. We started working on areas like the West Coast, which is going really well. Then we went down to the bottom of the South Island, which the member Eric Roy knows well about. There were great meetings, talking about how we could get more protection for marine areas. Those forums have proven to be a new model of negotiating with communities and iwi to look at marine protection. We also doubled the number of marine reserves from 17 to 33. We certainly did not do nothing while we were in Government, as has come across tonight from members on the other side of the House.

The bill is also about looking after threatened species: not only Hector’s and Māui’s dolphins but also sea lions. Parties went out on to the forecourt of Parliament, as we do when we are lobbied by pressure groups and advocacy groups. I received a petition from little children dressed as sea lions, asking us for more protection for sea lions. The children were very worried about marine animal species. National members were out there saying they would do something when they were in Government. But the first decent legislation that really builds some robustness around marine animal protection comes along and National is voting it down from a purely blind ideological position. I heard Colin King say that National would rather consult the industry and let it bring about voluntary change. Well, that does not work. That is exactly why the non-governmental organisations have said to us that these species are deteriorating now beyond sustainable replacement levels and that we have to do more. Talking to the fishing industry will never cut the mustard.

When I was Minister of Conservation one of the greatest challenges was having to look at marine protection, because I had to work with the Ministry of Fisheries. It was a difficult position. We were like the yin and yang of protection and pro-industry, and it never worked. It never worked and it never will work. I think the Bluegreens in National should hang their heads in shame about voting against the bill tonight. It is a genuine attempt. Industry will not come to the party on the issue. As Colin King said, the Government needs to lift its game. The member admitted that. How will voting down this marvellous legislation help the Government lift its game? We were worried about aspects of the bill, but we were very happy that some of the thresholds for sustainable levels could be sorted out with a good robust process in the select committee.

One of the issues was a new definition in the bill, which is that of “best available information”. That definition is always contestable. Who puts forward the information: the fishing industry, the scientific industry, or the conservationists?

ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) : It is a rare opportunity for me to speak on legislation. I do so on the Marine Animals Protection Law Reform Bill for two reasons. One is that I am a conservationist, and I think most people in the House know the position I take as a conservationist. The second is that having chaired for 20 months the total rewrite of the Fisheries Act 1996 I probably know as much, or more, about fisheries law and how it works as any other person in this House. I will desist from picking up on some of the politics and criticisms of various people or sections within parties that have been thrown out here tonight, because I think this issue is too important.

The bill has a laudable aim, which is to protect marine animals, creatures, birds, or whatever. All of us want that to happen. I have read the purpose of the bill; I have read the whole bill. My issue is to ask what is actually broken. What is now not working? Yes, there is mortality, but the Minister of Fisheries has at his disposal some significant steps he can take. Let us consider the issue of the Māui’s dolphin. Yes, we are seriously concerned about a unique dolphin, but the Minister put in place some measures that many sections of the community would say were Draconian or more than were actually necessary and applied them not only to the Māui’s dolphin but also to the Hector’s dolphin when the science around the endangerment of that species is far from proven. In fact, according to all anecdotal evidence, the Hector’s dolphin species is in pretty good shape.

The impacts of the bill are quite far-reaching. There are rig fishers out of many of our coastal ports near where Hector’s dolphins and Māui’s dolphins are who have a quota they now cannot fish. It is as simple as that. The Minister has some very, very strong options in terms of dealing with issues that need to be addressed. This bill shifts the approach from an effects-based approach to a prescriptive, generic approach. The difficulties about that are that it will substantially increase the cost of compliance. When we look at this bill and ask why it would be a difficulty it is simply for this reason: when putting in place fisheries legislation there needs to be what I call equity of influence. The fishing industry is a very polarised industry; if one tips the scales any one way one increases the rate of litigation. There is no Minister in any Cabinet who faces more litigation, legal challenges, or development of jurisprudence around the area of his or her portfolio than the Minister of Fisheries. That is the nature of the industry. The bill shifts influence in such a way that we will simply end up with Ministers of Fisheries simply not able to make a decision.

If members care to have a look at clause 20 they will see that it sets out quite clearly a change to the Fisheries Act that requires robust scientific information. How do we get robust scientific information? If we take the number of species of fish there are in New Zealand and divide it by the quota, we get 712 different fishing licences or annual catch entitlements to fish. How do we actually work out the biomass of each one of those 712 licences, in order to have a robust decision? The Minister when signing off what is the total allowable commercial catch has no robust science to be able to pursue that. It is just impossible to do. What is the corollary of that situation? The corollary is simply that at any stage in the future any individual, any member of this House, any member of any lobby group or any eco-group, or any fisher can go to the Minister and say that because the Minister does not have robust scientific information as prescribed in clause 20 of the bill he or she has made rules that are ultra vires. So we end up with a hamstrung industry because the Minister cannot make the decisions. We need to have what I call equity of influence. Some people call it equal screaming, when no one is happy but where there is a balance whereby things can be worked out. This bill just shifts the balance totally. I seek leave for a further 2 minutes.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought to extend the speech by a further 2 minutes. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

ERIC ROY: I thank the House; I really believe in this stuff. We are all consumed by the desire to protect species, but we have to do so within the realm of what is a workable solution.

The next question that could be raised—and I look forward to some members further developing this issue—concerns what robust science is and how we actually get it. I have mentioned only one part of that. The next situation that comes forward would be the fact that the select committee can sort it out, and with members’ bills, that is a good approach, but because this bill shifts the whole nature of the process of decision making so dramatically, I believe this bill has to be rewritten. Yes, there are some elements of the law that this bill modifies. We have the Wildlife Act of 1953 and the Marine Mammals Protection Act of 1978, and they may well be out of date, but we should bear in mind that the 1996 Act picked up a number of those issues in its principles and purposes. So, unfortunately, I will have to vote against this bill.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) : Firstly, I acknowledge that Eric Roy’s concerns for conservation interests are sincerely held beliefs, but I suggest for a number of reasons that his decision on the Marine Animals Protection Law Reform Bill is incorrect.

I start by pointing out a few statistics. Do members know that 50 percent of the world’s marine mammal species are found in our oceans? Although we do not have 50 percent of the numbers of those in world population terms, we have a very substantial proportion of the world’s sea mammals. Two-thirds of the world’s species of albatross and big petrels are found in our waters. Again, we also have a high proportion of their total numbers. If there is any one country in the world that needs to be a responsible guardian of our seabirds and our sea mammals, it is New Zealand. We have the greatest proportion. If we in New Zealand do not properly protect those species, we have to acknowledge the reality that the world, including New Zealand, is willing to oversee the extinction of those species. As a member of Parliament, I am not willing to abrogate my responsibilities and see that as an outcome. I am voting for this bill, and the Labour Party is voting for this bill.

The National Government says it does not want to be a world leader on these issues, but, really, we already are. The shameful thing is that we are the world leaders in conservation destruction. Since 1998 there has been a 50 percent decline in the Auckland Island’s population of the Hooker’s sea lion. I got that statistic from the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society and I trust it to be correct. If we think the population of that sea lion is getting better, I can tell members that in the last year that population declined by 30 percent as a consequence of by-catch—mainly through fishing for squid. So it is absolutely plain that the current law is not working.

The example Eric Roy gave of the Hector’s dolphin and the Māui’s dolphin is illustrative, because I see that example as arguing against the point Mr Roy was making. There needs to be a higher conservation baseline there, and he is right; it is being litigated by the industry. Every time the Minister of Fisheries makes a decision in respect of trying to improve the results of the catching of seals, sea lions, or albatross, it is very frequently litigated by the industry because the legal test in the legislation the Minister relies on is too lax. It is too difficult a hurdle for the Minister to meet without the risk of litigation, and that is why members should support the referral of this bill in the name of Metiria Turei to the Local Government and Environment Committee.

Like Steve Chadwick, I think there are some problems with the definitions in new section 2A, inserted by clause 5, relating to the protection of marine mammals and the effect of the definition of the “high probability that each population will be at or above the level at which it has its maximum net productivity”. That test is a wee bit high; actually, I think it is impossible to meet, but that can be sorted out at the select committee. The principle at stake here is we as guardians of a substantial proportion of the world’s sea mammals and big seabirds are currently failing in our duty to the world. We are failing not just our own populations and not just because of the intrinsic worth of those populations, but we are failing the rest of the world. As I said, those populations are already declining. In the case of the Hooker’s sea lion, the Auckland Islands’ population has declined by 50 percent since 1998. I think that says it all; we do not need to go further than that. Our law is patently not working at the moment, and we need to do better.

It reflects poorly on the National Government that it will not allow this bill to be referred to the select committee. National pretended before the election to be blue-green. We now know that it will not lead on any of these things despite the fact that the rest of the world relies upon New Zealand because we have 50 percent of the species of marine mammals, more than two-thirds of the species of albatross and big petrels in our economic zone, a substantial proportion of their total populations, and they are declining. One final point: Sir Peter Blake said this is happening so fast that he noticed the absences of birds on his around-the-world voyages.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) :Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Kia ora tātou e te Whare. Hoi noa i ngā tau e rua ki muri i te wā i haere Tai Tokerau ki Ōrakei ki te kōrero mō te kaupapa o WAI 262, arā, te kaupapa mō ngā uri a Tāne, kei tō mātou taha, a w’āea Saana Murray. Engari, ehara ko ia anake. E tautau mai ana i tana kakī, ko tōna taonga tūturu, te anga o te pūpū harakeke. Mō ngā tau tekau mā waru, mai i te tīmatanga o tēnei kaupapa i mua i te aroaro o te taraipiunara, i mau mai ia i tōna pūpū harakeke. Ko tēnei te taura e here ana i a ia ki tōna tupuna.Tata ngaro ana te pūpū harakeke i te mata o te whenua, ā, he kaupapa tino pōuri tēnei mo Ngāti Kurī i te mea mō te mano tau ki muri, ko rātou te kaitiaki o te taonga nei. I raro i tēnei kaupapa, te kaitiakitanga, ko te tikanga kia tiaki i ngā uri o Tāne engari, kei te whakapōrearea tēnei tikanga i te mea, kei te tūkinohia te taiao.

Nā konā, ka hari au ki te tū ki te tautoko i taku tuahine, a Mētīria, me tana pire hei tiaki i ngā kararehe o te moana; kia pai ai te noho o ngā uri o Tāne, kia maha, kia noho ora mai rātou.Kei te whakaae hoki mātou kia tuku pūtea te Kāwanatanga, hei āwhina i a rātou kei te tokoiti haere, kia maranga mai anō.E tautoko ana te Pāti Māori i tenei pire mō ngā tutumairekurai, papakanua, tūpoupou, hopuhopu, tukuperu, me ngā upokohue, ngā aihe ā Māui.Ko ēnei ngā aihe tino tokoiti o te ao, he tino taonga rātou ki a mātou. E ai ki ngā kōrero, kotahi rau tekau mā tahi noa iho, rātou e toe ana.

Ko te wāhanga o te pire nei kei te tino tautoko e mātou, ko te tikanga, kia rāhui i ngā mahi a te tangata, i ō rātou wāhi noho. E whakaaro ana ahau ki ngā paru ka tukuna ki te moana, ngā rapihi paratūtae. He tino raruraru anō wētahi o ngā momo hī ika me ngā mahi kari i te moana. Mai rāno mātou i whakahē i ngā tono raihana ki te kari i te moana, ki te rapuhinu, me wērā atu mea i te mea, ko ēnā mahi kei te tukituki i te wāhi noho o ngā uri a Tāne. Ko te nako a tēnei pire kia tohu ki te Papa Atawhai kia whakamatautauhia ngā mahi a ngāi tāua ki te taiao, te kāinga noho o ngā kararehe nei.

He whakaaro anō tāku mō te komiti whāiti, hakoa e tohu ana te pire nei kia wānangahia tēnei kaupapa e te Tumuaki o Te Papa Atawhai me te Māori, kīhai i tohia kia korero hāngai ki ngā iwi, kei a rātou te mana whenua o ēnei rohe. Engari i raro i tēnei pire, ko te iwi Māori he rōpū kotahi i roto i te maha noa atu o ngā rōpū katoa. Ko tō mātau wawata, kia whakamanahia te tangata whenua hei kaitiaki ki te haere whakamua i tēnei pire. Kei te tautoko mātou i tēnei, te pānui tuatahi o tēnei pire i te mea, ko tō mātau hiahia kia noho ora, noho pai te taiao mō tātou katoa me ngā uri whakaheke. Kia ora tātou.

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

[Greetings to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and to us, the House. Indeed, 2 years ago whenTai Tokerau turned up to Ōrakei Marae, to speak to the hearings for the WAI 262 claim, the indigenous flora and fauna claim, we were flanked by our Auntie Saana Murray. She never travels alone; around her neck she carries the large coiled white shell of the pūpū harakeke, a flax snail. For the 18 years since the historic claim began, Auntie Saana has worn her flax snail shell, which links her directly to her ancestor. The flax snail is now a threatened native species—a fact of life that causes great sadness to Ngāti Kurī, who have been the guardians of this treasure for 1,000 years. Our guardianship responsibilities, the capacity to protect and care for our native plants and animals, have been severely compromised by the destruction of ecosystems.

From this context, then, I am pleased to come to support the sister, Mētīria, in her bill, the Marine Animals Protection Law Reform Bill, to ensure that marine animals are a functioning element of their ecosystem. We support the objectives to maintain populations at healthy levels. And we also believe that the Government should make the investment to enable depleted or threatened populations to recover. The Māori Party supports this bill, in particular, on behalf of the Hector’s dolphin species of tutumairekurai, papakanua, tūpoupou, hopuhopu, tukuperu, and upokohue, Māui’s dolphins. These are the rarest marine dolphin in the world, revered by the people of the land as treasures, and it is estimated that there are only 111 of these creatures left.

The part of the bill we are most keen to support is the introduction of objectives to manage the human impacts in the marine environment. I am thinking of things like pollutants, rubbish, and human waste discharges into the sea. Fishing and harvesting seafood, particularly with methods such as bottom trawling and dredging, are disturbing. We have always spoken out against the granting of mining and oil exploration licences, and related activities that cause adverse effects to the ocean environment, and, therefore, marine animals. So what this bill will do is to require the Department of Conservation to regularly monitor human impacts on marine mammals to ensure that the protection objectives are being met.

I want to plant an idea for further debate that we hope will come up during the select committee process, because while the bill creates an obligation on the Director-General of Conservation to consult with representatives of Māori, it does not create an obligation to specifically consult with those who have authority over the land. Instead, what we see in this bill is that Māori are being positioned as one interest group amongst many. We hope that the unique status of people of the land as a guardian will come forward in later renditions of the bill. We are happy to offer our support at this first reading, in our commitment to keep our natural resources and environment healthy, safe, and intact for everyone and for the generations to come. Greetings to us .]

KEVIN HAGUE (Green) : Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker, te Kaihautū o te Whare. I want to begin by talking about some of my experience as a yachtie. I do not have time to do it any more, but in years gone by, I used to do it a lot. There is nothing quite like sailing a boat out of sight of land. It is kind of an eerie feeling; it changes one’s perspective. I am minded to think of the fact that, when we look at Earth from space, most of its surface is taken up by ocean. When we look at this country of ours, New Zealand, Aotearoa, most of its exclusive economic zone is also sea or ocean. The problem is that from land we cannot see it. The problem is that it is out of sight, out of mind. As we have heard from various speakers tonight, so much of the vital biodiversity of our nation, and, indeed, so much of the biodiversity treasure trove of the world is in the ocean surrounding New Zealand. Most of us cannot see it, and, therefore, we often do not think of it.

In his address tonight, Colin King spoke of a commercial fisherman’s story, and I will give one of my own. It concerns one of the central figures in the commercial fishing industry in New Zealand today, who told me about the nuisance presented by dolphins. They get caught up in fishing nets, and then what can one do? It is a waste of a good net. So it is a bullet through the head for the dolphin.

There is no question that the legal framework we have currently for protecting marine animals, both mammals and other animals, is not working. There is no question that we need to do something and we need to do something now if we want to change that picture. I have listened to all the speeches made on this legislation by members of the House, and every one said they want to do something about this problem. Well, the very best opportunity we have in this House to do something about this problem is the opportunity presented by this bill tonight. Certainly, I have heard from various members of the House tonight that there are problems with this bill. Eric Roy spoke about some of those problems, and I think all members have acknowledged some improvements that can be made to this bill. But the place to deal with those problems is at the select committee. If we choose to not allow this bill to proceed tonight, and instead to wait on some never-never land of another bill that might come before the House at some future time, then the cost of that decision will be in extinctions of New Zealand marine animals.

We Greens see the protection of biodiversity as not being principally an economic issue, but we are aware that some people do see it in those terms. I want to note that the clean, green image on which we trade internationally in every respect—not only tourism but also all of those agricultural exports—actually relies on the protection of our biodiversity, and the protection of the marine animals and other animals in New Zealand. So I appeal tonight to those on the Government benches. I realise that they came into the House tonight with a set of instructions to oppose this bill. I appeal to those members to reconsider. If this is truly a bad bill, then they can vote it down at some future stage. What is the harm in allowing this bill to proceed to select committee? The reasons given for not doing so are pathetic. The Government talks of a nanny State; I say, instead, that they run the risk of promoting the “ninny State”, which risks cutting off its nose to spite its face. They speak of the fishing industry, and I say that craven capitulation to those interests does no one any good.

AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) : I rise tonight to take a call on the Marine Animals Protection Law Reform Bill. I think it is no surprise that National will be voting against the bill, but I want to give some context to that decision, because if one looks at just the decision itself, one does not get an explanation of the picture.

I think, after listening to the debate in the House, it is evident that there is a strong level of support and agreement on the importance of our marine environment and the importance of marine mammals and seabirds. None of us is disputing that importance or disputing the need to deal with these issues. I am definitely a supporter of biodiversity and marine reserves in particular.

Hon Steve Chadwick: Hollow words.

AMY ADAMS: I point out for members who dispute that, that I have spent the entire time I have been a member of this House working incredibly hard with the local members of my communities to get a marine reserve in the Akaroa inner harbour, where one is absolutely needed. That has been an ongoing piece of work for me, which I continue to support. I support it because I recognise, as do the other members on this side of the House, that marine life, marine mammals in particular, has a very special place in our natural environment. The Hon David Parker talked about it before.

We have 41 species of cetaceans in the New Zealand marine environment and nine species of seals. In addition to that, we all acknowledge the important part that marine mammals play in our cultural identity. I take on board the words of the Māori Party members in that regard. If we look back, there was Opo the dolphin in Ōpōnoni in the 1950s, and just lately we have Harbour Hector, the Hector’s dolphin in Wellington Harbour. We all have memories, I would suggest, of swimming with dolphins in the Bay of Islands, off Kaikōura, or in Akaroa, or of watching them swim alongside the ferry.

I freely acknowledge that marine mammals are significant players in our tourism sector. I take on board what Kevin Hague said in that regard. He is quite right. The marine environment is an important factor in our economy. Certainly in Akaroa, which is part of my electorate, it is a vital part of the tourism economy.

Equally, we have to be fair and acknowledge that New Zealand already sits at the forefront of marine mammal conservation. In saying that, I do not resile from the fact that there is certainly more we can do, and this Government supports doing more. But we do not want to fall into the trap of thinking that any additional regulation must be a good way to go. We have to look at whether it will be right for the purpose and whether it will achieve what we need to achieve.

I mentioned that New Zealand is already at the forefront of marine mammal protection, and it is. All cetaceans are already fully protected under the Marine Mammals Protection Act 1978, and anyone who chooses to breach that Act faces 6 months’ imprisonment and fines of up to a quarter of a million dollars, including an extra $10,000 fine per animal. We have the Department of Conservation Marine Mammal Action Plan for 2005-2010,The New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy, which is the foundation document on these arguments, and the set-net ban, which came into force over the east coast of the South Island and in many other parts of the country in May of last year. The national plan of action on seabirds is now under review to ensure fishing does not have an unacceptable impact on any of those species.

The point National is making is that the protection of iconic and threatened marine species is something that we take incredibly seriously, but—and it is a but; it is the reason we are not supporting this legislation—the tools already exist to manage the situation, and if the issue is that Ministers in previous Governments have not used them sufficiently or effectively, then let us address that. If it has not been done to date, then that does not necessarily mean that the tools are not there. I would suggest that the tools are there and that we have to ensure that they are used.

The compliance burden imposed by this bill is unworkable. In this House Opposition parties badger the Government daily about jobs. Well, this bill is a very real example of where the rubber hits the road, because passing this bill would cost jobs, and suddenly all those members’ strong talk on jobs goes out the window. It will cost jobs in the fishing industry, but those members do not care about jobs any more. Now that they are wearing their environmental hats, they say: “Stuff the job market.” All of that was just rhetoric.

This issue is about the economy partly. It is about maintaining the fishing industry partly. But we believe that we can do this in a collaborative and community-based way. This is not about the Government imposing its will on a sector that will not accept it. More regulation is not the answer. The answer is working with stakeholders, and that is what we will do. Thank you.

Hon CHRIS CARTER (Labour—Te Atatū) : I rise to support this Marine Animals Protection Law Reform Bill, which sets out to give greater protection to some of New Zealand’s unique species. I feel well qualified to speak on this bill. For 5 years, from 2002 to 2007, I was privileged to be New Zealand’s Minister of Conservation. During that time I was a passionate and very public advocate of greater marine mammal protection. I frequently fought with the Ministry of Fisheries, occasionally with my colleagues who held the portfolio of Minister of Fisheries—I see one here tonight—and also, of course, not least of all, with the Seafood Industry Council.

The previous speaker, Amy Adams, talked about the importance of marine protection. In fact, she made reference to a proposal to have a marine reserve in Akaroa Harbour. Well, how interesting that statement was in this House, when Mr Groser, one of our successors as Minister of Conservation, has just instructed the Department of Conservation that there will be no more marine reserve applications. I am proud that in the 5 years I had the job I created 17 marine reserves. Mr Groser and his Government are creating none. How astonishing to have a National member say that she would like to see one in Akaroa Harbour! I guess that she had better speak to her Minister.

She could also talk to him a little about the cut to funding to Enviroschools, an incredibly positive learning programme that has been taking place in about 30 percent of New Zealand’s schools. It is a programme that has been copied in Chile and elsewhere in the world because it was so successful not only in raising knowledge about conservation and environmental issues but also in creating incredible learning experiences for young people.

I attended five International Whaling Commission conferences as the Minister of Conservation. I was proud that I was able to be a strong advocate for the great whale species. A number of colleagues from the Green Party and Labour have mentioned how unique our marine environment is. New Zealand’s marine environment, the area that we have legal jurisdiction over, covers some 480 million hectares of ocean. That is the fourth-largest marine jurisdiction in the world. New Zealand is a great oceanic country. Its marine area covers 27 times its land area. The vast marine area that we are responsible for is home to many unique endemic species. Several colleagues have mentioned the 50 species of marine mammals that are found in that area. There are already 15,000 identified marine species, ranging from marine birds to unique fish species, unique seaweeds, unique corals, and, not least of all, unique mammals.

Our Government was a signatory to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity. We are, therefore, committed to maintaining New Zealand’s unique biodiversity. It is a taonga, a treasure, for the current generation and future generations. We have an incredible responsibility to future generations of New Zealanders to look after the species that we have in this vast marine realm.

I mentioned that there are 50 species of marine mammal. Over half of the world’s species of whales swim through our seas. These whales are incredibly vulnerable. Only 5 percent of the number of humpbacks exist today compared with the number that existed before whaling began. We have two unique endemic species of dolphins. I thank our Māori Party colleague Hone Harawira for the support of the Māori Party for this legislation in Metiria Turei’s name, because it is very important. Māori people especially appreciate the importance of future generations. With regard to our two unique dolphin species, Hector’s dolphin and Māui’s dolphin, Hone mentioned that there are 111 Māui’s dolphin left and perhaps 7,500 Hector’s dolphins. All of these species are at risk through inappropriate fishing practices. For many years when I was the Minister of Conservation I debated with the fishing industry about safe methods of using nets, particularly in the Southern Ocean, in the hoki fishery, during ling fishing, and so on.

I seek leave for a 2-minute extension for my speech.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There—[Interruption]

Hon CHRIS CARTER: Oh, I see. So we let Eric Roy—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Maybe the member could seek leave again.

Hon CHRIS CARTER: I seek leave for a 2-minute extension.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought for a 2-minute extension. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

Hon CHRIS CARTER: I thank the House for this extension of time.

Members in this House, especially those who were MPs before the 2008 election, will know that I am a very passionate conservationist. In fact, the nicest thing that has ever been written about me in the media was in a Japanese daily, which described me as an environmental extremist. I took that as the greatest compliment that had ever been paid to me as a politician, because I am passionate about our unique biodiversity in New Zealand.

I have mentioned already this vast oceanic realm that we are responsible for and the unique species that are found there. I have made reference to the two dolphin species, which are particularly vulnerable. The New Zealand sea lion is unique to our waters, and is now restricted just to the Auckland Islands and the Campbell Islands, which is a place I had the privilege of visiting when I was the Minister of Conservation. That species has been enormously reduced through the sealing programme that took place over 100 years ago. The southern right whale swims through our waters. We think there may be as few as 30 left that traverse through New Zealand waters. All of these statistics are statistics, but they are actually more than that. They are a message to us as decision makers, as politicians, and as people who shape this country to protect these species. If we do not protect them, they will be lost. There are simple ways of protecting these species.

My colleague David Parker, who is now Labour’s conservation spokesperson, talked about the unique species of petrel, seabird, and albatross that nest around many of the islands, particularly in the southern part of our country. There are fishing techniques that have been developed here in New Zealand and elsewhere in the world that can enormously reduce the mortality of albatross species in particular.

One of the Government members just talked about our strategy on seabirds, which was developed, I have to say proudly, while I was conservation Minister. That strategy is about getting the fishing industry to adopt best practice. I have to tell members that it is enormously difficult to get cooperation from the fishing industry on even simple things such as how we put out longlines for fishing and how we bring in nets. The fishing industry had a totally extractive commercial view on this. It was not about jobs; it was about cutting costs as much as it could. If we have to spend a little bit more to save what is unique about New Zealand, I am all for that.

METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) : I thank members for their contributions this evening on my Marine Animals Protection Law Reform Bill, particularly those who have spoken in support of the legislation. The kind words about the bill and the issue of marine animal protection and its importance are much appreciated.

I will refer briefly to a few comments made by National members. I note a few things. The first is that no Minister with a relevant portfolio has bothered to speak on this legislation. No Minister of the Crown has spoken on the legislation. It is the first truly environmental conservation legislation to come before this Parliament since the last election and no Minister has bothered to speak on it. For all that the National members talk about their blue-green approach to issues and their new-found interest in environmental issues, the lack of commitment from any Minister who holds an environmental portfolio to be present in the House and to speak on this bill is a disgrace. It clearly shows that this Government has a complete lack of commitment to true environmental protection and to the protection of our species and the economy, the industries, to which our environment contributes to such a significant extent.

I say to Colin King that pāua are not marine animals for the purposes of this legislation. He gave a generous speech, but none the less it was inaccurate. I also just note that when I tried to find out from National members whether they would vote for this bill—and it took some time, in fact, some days, to get a clear position—it was not the Minister of Conservation who rang me to talk about this bill, but I found that the Minister of Fisheries was handling this issue. Listening to the speeches that have been given by members this evening, it is clear where National puts issues like the protection of marine animal species such as the albatrosses in this photograph, which, as members can see, were found dead due to activities in the fishing industry. National appears to give the fishing industry a much greater level of decision making or a greater role in this issue.

I note that Amy Adams talked about the importance of jobs, and I will get on to that in a moment. I also note that Amy Adams said that current legislation provides adequate protection, which, of course, is rubbish. I feel very disappointed that Ms Adams was not able to give a rational or logical contribution to this debate, because the whole point of this legislation is to give adequate protection to marine animals. Indeed, the Bluegreens’ manifesto on its website clearly describes marine protection legislation as a “regulatory mess”. The Bluegreens say it is a regulatory mess, but Ms Adams has obviously not bothered to read that Bluegreens’ National Party document. That is the position of the Bluegreens, at least. However, the Bluegreens obviously have no influence in the National Party, because there is simply no adequate protection.

This is a photograph of Hector’s dolphins. This image will be branded for New Zealand tourism and New Zealand conservation: dead dolphins. At some point, quite possibly under the leadership of a National Government, we may well see the extinction of our most vulnerable endangered marine dolphin species, Māui’s dolphin.

I note too that it is not just dolphins that have a good public image, if you like. Other vulnerable and endangered species include the New Zealand sea lion. Despite the fact that they have absolute protection under the current legislation, they are none the less able to be part of the by-catch under the fishing legislation for the squid fishery. I note that last year, in the last fishing season, 72 New Zealand sea lions were killed by the fishing industry. They were killed lawfully under the marine protection legislation that we have in place. Clearly the legislation is failing. Clearly these animals are dying as a result of the lack of protection. Clearly National does not care that we are losing these iconic species, which are so key to our tourism industry.

There are other broad issues. I would very much like both the industry and Māori in particular to be able to come to the select committee to give us their views about this issue. That is why we send bills to select committees—so that we get that consultation, that discussion, with our community, which is affected by the decisions we make. I would welcome this bill’s referral to a select committee; that is why we would like to see it go before a select committee. However, National is preventing that dialogue from occurring.

This photograph of dead albatrosses will become the image of the special protection, the special place, that Amy Adams considers our marine animals to have in the New Zealand economy and in New Zealand conservation. This is the New Zealand brand under National.

Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) : I move, That the Customs and Excise (Prohibition of Imports Made by Slave Labour) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I am pleased to bring this bill, the Customs and Excise (Prohibition of Imports Made by Slave Labour) Amendment Bill, to the House this evening. Slavery was abolished in Britain in the nineteenth century, and the ban on slavery is a foundation stone of modern international human rights law. It is unambiguously prohibited by international law, and the few Governments that tolerate it can be prosecuted by the International Criminal Court in The Hague. Despite this, the evil of slavery continues, with estimates ranging from 12 million to 29 million people enslaved. Despite bans in law, I am advised that hereditary slavery continues in Mauritania and Niger, while the use of child slaves is widespread in parts of West Africa. There are regular cases from Asia of parents selling their children into slavery, and debt slavery continues to occur in parts of the Asian subcontinent and in South America.

Banning the fruits of this vile traffic is a moral imperative and moral necessity. We live in the 21st century. Globalisation has brought trading partners closer together and opened up opportunities for the exchange of goods on a scale not known before. Just recently in this House, we passed legislation enabling the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand free-trade agreement to proceed, thereby opening up huge markets to rapidly reducing tariffs for our exporters. But globalised trade does not happen in a moral vacuum, and that is the starting point for my bill. Although I am a strong supporter of free trade, for many reasons, not the least of them being that I believe New Zealanders’ quality of life is dependent upon the wealth and the jobs created from tradable commodities and services, I do not believe in trade at any price. Trade must occur at the right price, a fair price, and an ethical price. Fair trade and ethical trade are the starting points for this debate.

This bill presents the New Zealand Parliament with an opportunity to explore in good faith how free trade and human rights might be accommodated in a principled and thoughtful way. Earlier this year the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee considered the petition of Geoff White, on behalf of Trade Aid and 17,000 others, requesting just this: that the House legislate against the importation of products made by slave labour. The question was considered and reported back to the House, with a Green Party view expressing a desire for legislation. The conversation around this issue has continued within the Labour Party since that time, along the lines that, notwithstanding any practical difficulties of attestation, proof, and enforcement, it was still worthwhile to bring a bill to a select committee for consideration, investigation, and amendment where appropriate.

There is no doubt that this bill represents an idealistic position, but I do not make any apology for that. It is not the first idealistic position I have adopted, and I hope it will not be the last one. The mechanism for achieving the ends sought in this bill is the addition of a definition of “slave labour” to the definition clause of the Customs and Excise Act 1996, and the insertion of another clause into schedule 1 of that Act. These are modest proposals. I have no interest in scoring points on this issue. I seek, in good faith, to present a bill before the House that we can debate in a select committee where improvement can be made, in order that New Zealand can stand up and say that our law bans the importation of goods produced by slave labour. There would not be a member in this House who would for a moment support slave labour, or the fruits of it; not one member in this House, I am sure. [Interruption]. Perhaps one has just walked in. This bill is being brought forward without any sense of positioning or point-scoring in mind. I have only the desire to bring to the fore a discussion about an ethical and a morally based position on trade in this Parliament.

Although international trade rules, for example GATT, do not contain specific permission to ban goods produced by slavery, they allow measures necessary to protect public morals, human life and health, or to ban goods produced by prison labour, which is article 20 of GATT. Schedule 1 of the Customs and Excise Act 1996, which this bill seeks to amend, accordingly states that “Goods manufactured or produced wholly or in part by prison labour” are prohibited goods. The same efforts and mechanisms that are used to enforce that statute might be used to enforce the provisions of this bill. In fact, examination at the select committee might produce even better mechanisms than the ones we have. I do not have a monopoly on that wisdom. I was not a member of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee at the time it considered the original petition from Trade Aid. But, as I say, the conversation has continued within the Labour Party around this matter since that time. The United States has the Tariff Act of 1930, which unambiguously bars the entry of goods produced by any form of forced labour, including slave and child labour. Belgium has a Government-endorsed voluntary social label, which producers can sign up to, that declares absolutely that their goods are not produced by slave labour. So there are two models already out there in the international arena that we could consider more closely in the application to New Zealand legislation.

We should all aspire to a global economic system that trades sustainably and ethically. I do not believe this is pie-in-the-sky legislation. I believe that all of us should look beyond current structures, current economic systems, and current constraints to a world where we know that what we consume has not been produced by means of “labour by persons over whom any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership are exercised.” That is the definition I seek to include in the amendment to the Customs and Excise Act. That is a definition of slavery that echoes the wording of the 1926 Slavery Convention and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. New Zealand is a party to both of those pieces of international law. Let us see whether we can find a way to make our universal, undoubted commitment to the abolition of slavery in all its forms practical in our trading relationships. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): The member must indicate, under Standing Order 279, which select committee the bill will be referred to, should it be successful.

Hon MARYAN STREET: As a sequel to my penultimate sentence, as it were, I seek that this bill be referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee for consideration.

Hon TIM GROSER (Minister of Trade) : National will not be supporting the referral of the Customs and Excise (Prohibition of Imports Made by Slave Labour) Amendment Bill to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, from whence the issue it addresses basically came in February this year. But I want to share some sentiments with the member whose bill this is, the Hon Maryan Street. I would argue that if anyone is honest about this issue they have to admit that the member is correct: the conversation continues. We all struggle with this issue. Not just decent people in this country, but people around the world struggle with this issue.

I will not make a speech about the abhorrence of slavery. I accept what the member has just said, and no member in this House—one small joke aside, which we will pass over quickly—would fail to share that view. The historical image is forever in our minds of the slave ships, and those of us who saw President Obama inspect one of the awful sites from which they came, in his historical homeland, have had this image refreshed in our collective memories only in the last few days. The problems are many and varied. The traditions of servitude and forced labour in many societies prove to be extraordinarily hard to eradicate.

Extensive evidence was given to members of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee—I had the privilege of being on that committee—when we were considering this issue in the course of 2008. It may well have started in 2007; I do not recall when, precisely, we started to wrestle with this issue. Many fine minds, particularly in the United States—where, for reasons that are stunningly obvious, more anti-slavery non-governmental organisations exist than in any other country—grapple with the issues that I know the member is trying to focus political attention on.

I think we all understand that the long-term solution is sustainable economic development. The world has made extraordinary progress in the last 30 years, not eradicating but reducing absolute poverty, the breeding ground for appalling labour conditions of which slavery is the most abhorrent. We all understand that solution. There is a variety of different views on how to establish it, but sustainable economic development, plus the spread of human rights, is the long-term solution. I am one of those who strongly believe there are linkages between those two big objectives, those two fundamental solutions. But that solution is not fast enough for us; we all understand that. From time to time people take the initiative to see whether there is something more that we can do, and this member’s bill is the latest example of that.

As the select committee found when it went through the issues with a high level of consensus in the committee, the problems start with the definition. This is not particular to us; even this century, starting from the 1930 ILO definition around forced labour, people have struggled with defining this problem. It is simple if we have a very narrow definition that would be associated with what I call the historical image of the slave ships. But the moment we widen that definition, as the member’s bill does, we have some real problems in trying to target what is legitimate and realisable from what is illegitimate. It is deeply in contention by many, many developing countries, and it would lead to massive disputation were we to proceed down that track. The member’s bill is a fair effort, but the definition is broad: “labour by persons over whom any or all”—emphasising the word “any”—“of the powers attaching to the right of ownership are exercised.” I guarantee that any attempt to define this unilaterally and impose an import ban would cause real problems for any country moving in that direction.

The second fundamental problem behind the definitional issues is that the very success of the spread of economic development and the growth of the global supply-chain associated with it compounds the difficulty. So many different products from so many different countries are incorporated in a final product. In the climate change discussions that I had the privilege of attending in Singapore last week under the Rt Hon Simon Upton, the chairman of the OECD committee on sustainable development, we grappled with an example that I think illustrates it well, but with a different frame of mind. The issue was whether we could apply unilaterally border tax adjustments to countries not doing the right thing on climate change, and people were using the example of the Apple iPod. As one of our ministerial colleagues pointed out, when it arrives in the United States it has “Made in China” stamped on the box. Actually, an analysis of an Apple iPod has been done. The recommended retail price in the United States is $299—round it up to $300. Only $4 of that stays in China; $130 of it stays in the United States, because the real value in these products is the intellectual property in them; and 20 or so other countries are involved in manufacturing the components. How any New Zealand customs officer would try to disaggregate a problem like that when the reality of the global supply-chain massively compounds the problem defeated the select committee. I am sorry to say that, were we to refer this bill back to the committee, the problem would defeat the committee once again.

Another example—and it is, in the nasty sense of the word, the poster child of this issue—is cocoa. The countries that most of the international attention is directed at are Côte d’Ivoire and Ghana. Of course there is grave concern about the labour conditions in those two desperately poor countries, but all attempts to define this concern in a more operationally effective way by many non-governmental organisations, many Governments, and many international negotiations have failed to establish a consensus on this matter. The second most at-risk product, sugar, would emerge in numerous foodstuffs imported into New Zealand. How would we ever be able to differentiate between products made from this wide definition of “slavery” and products made simply by poor people? Most of the sugar in the world is produced by poor people, and it is a very good thing that we import sugar. I remember being party, as a very junior person in the New Zealand system many years ago, to a decision in the 1970s that stopped the beet production of sugar in this country, precisely to allow Pacific Island countries, and Fiji in particular, the opportunity to export to New Zealand. I thought it was a fantastic moral decision taken at the time. The importation of sugar from poor countries is part of the solution, not part of the problem.

The way forward will be murky, as it always has been. It will rely on a multiplicity of efforts and on New Zealand’s and other countries’ participation in a variety of United Nations institutions. The UN itself is very active in this area, as is the United Nations Human Rights Council and the ILO. New Zealand is a party to the 1926 Slavery Convention, the ILO Convention 29 Concerning Forced or Compulsory Labour, and certain other conventions that I am not so familiar with but that are directed at the same general policy area. In addition to those conventions, and I give credit to the previous Government for this, we have promoted trade and labour side agreements in our free-trade agreements. That promotion obviously falls way short of driving the level of ambition that we all want, but at least it moves the trade and labour debates in a mutually supportive way.

We are continuing that tradition with this Government. We will also support the further development of guidelines of a voluntary nature. Often people are very reckless with the international trading system. They think trade bans, trade embargoes, and trade threats can solve each and every problem, when there is abundant evidence that that is a gross simplification. Actually, a lot of very useful progress can be made with voluntary codes. We will continue to support efforts in the OECD, corporate social responsibility codes, and others.

To sum up, I accept the underlying premise of the member’s bill that the conversation has not ended. It has not ended anywhere in this world. We will continue to work on it, but yet another examination by the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee would not lead us very far.

Hon CHRIS CARTER (Labour—Te Atatū) : Kia ora koutou katoa. I rise to support the Customs and Excise (Prohibition of Imports Made by Slave Labour) Amendment Bill. While listening to the presentation from National MP Tim Groser, the Minister of Trade, I thought back to 202 years ago, when in the imperial Parliament in London, the Slave Trade Act was passed in 1807. I thought about the speeches that were no doubt given in the British Parliament by ship owners from Liverpool, Bristol, and Southampton. I thought about the interests of the great sugar plantation owners in Jamaica and Trinidad. I thought about the American merchants who were involved in the slave trade, as human beings were carted from the west coast of Africa to the slave plantations of America and the West Indies. I thought about the cotton and sugar that was returned to Britain to be processed in the mills that my ancestors and those of many others here probably worked in at that time.

I also thought about the arguments that would have been marshalled against William Wilberforce as he proposed year after year in the British Parliament that slavery, that pernicious system, should be abolished. I thought that some of those speeches from some of the rich ship owners, plantation slave owners, cotton merchants, and sugar merchants would have been just like Mr Groser’s speech. Those speeches would have been about how trade was the lifeblood of their empire. They would have been about why Britain had to be strong. They would have been about money. They would have been about why Britain could not take a lead on the issue of slavery.

Mr Wilberforce, persistent man that he was, managed to convince enough British MPs to support his legislation. Then, in 1833, the slaves themselves were freed in the year that Wilberforce died. Again, that was an amazing action by the British Government. It was an action that almost bankrupted Britain. The Prime Minister at the time spent 25 percent of the Budget of the then richest country in the world in order to free the slaves, because enough people in Britain felt that slavery was a wicked institution and should not exist.

And, yes, Mr Groser acknowledged the image that we all have of the slave ships as they went from West Africa across the Atlantic to the Americas: the degradation, the suffering, the pain, the death, the indignity, and the wickedness of it. But I say to Mr Groser that I have an image of children in West Africa today: one of children who are bonded slaves. I have an image of debt bonding in India, in Paraguay, in Peru, and in other developing countries where people are sold into slavery, much as they sold were into slavery on the plantations of Jamaica, Trinidad, and Cuba, and of South Carolina, Alabama, and Georgia. These are modern-day slaves. Yes, they exist today.

All that my colleague is saying is that we should send this bill to a select committee so that we can look at it. We may be able to do what Belgium has done, and get businesses to sign up to say they will not import goods made by slave labour. Of course, at the moment we say there is a total ban on importing goods produced by prison labour. How can this be different from that? How could it be more difficult to identify goods made by slave labour and implement a ban on importing them, especially if we follow the Belgian track of saying businesses can do this on their own initiative? I do not know which system we might approve or find the most acceptable.

Like my colleague Maryan Street, I am a proponent of free trade. Last year, as the then Minister of Education, I was with our then Prime Minister, Helen Clark, in Beijing when we signed the historic free-trade agreement with China. For 9 years the previous Labour Government was the most active Government New Zealand has ever had in terms of doing trade deals. We signed the four-way deal with Chile, Brunei, and Singapore. We signed a free-trade agreement with China, and we were the first Western country to do so. We are engaged in free-trade negotiations with India and Korea. We have signed a free-trade agreement with ASEAN. Labour has a proud record on trade, but we also have a very proud record on having a moral foreign policy.

Last night in this House we debated, and we all agreed, that there should be a ban on cluster weapons. Why is there not a consensus here? Could it be because money is involved? Could it be that Mr Groser is very much the heir of the plantation owners and the great merchants who grew fat on the basis of the slave trade?

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) : I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this Customs and Excise (Prohibition of Imports Made by Slave Labour) Amendment Bill in the name of Maryan Street.

I think the last speaker, Chris Carter, was a little shrill, particularly in saying that the Labour Government was responsible for opening up a lot of trade. That is absolutely true, but when we point to China, which is one of the countries that has been identified as being associated with enforced labour, we see there is a problem with his argument.

It is important to state right from the beginning that the altruism behind this bill is absolutely correct: slavery or coerced labour is totally repugnant. However, the reasons that National is not supporting this bill relate to the fact that ministry advisers, and the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee report on a petition brought to it in February this year, have suggested that a bill such as this is unworkable.

I note that there are varying estimates of how many people around the world are subject to slavery or coerced labour. It is most likely to be in the millions. I was quite shocked to see a recent US State Department report suggesting just how close to home the problem is. The report of 2008 noted 14 countries where Governments do not fully comply with the Trafficking Victims Protection Act minimum standards and are not making significant efforts to do so. Sadly, two of those countries are Fiji and Papua New Guinea. I think that is of great concern to us here in the South Pacific. But, as members will know, New Zealand is one of the many countries that have a proud record of standing up for human rights. It is also a signatory to the Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, the Slave Trade, and Institutions and Practices Similar to Slavery.

However, as I said earlier on, one of the important issues behind this bill—and why National members are opposing it—is its unworkability. That was brought out very clearly in the report on the petition of Geoff White on behalf of Trade Aid and 17,000 others. Firstly, in relation to international trade rules, the report states: “We were told by the ministry that in the context of international trade rules New Zealand would need to consider a number of technical issues if it were to impose a trade ban on goods proven to have been produced by slave labour.” My colleague Tim Groser certainly explained the complexities of the problems in relation to goods that have multiple derivations from different places and are made up from different parts.

I understand that New Zealand would need to prove that any such trade ban was not a disguised restriction on trade, and that in itself would be quite a difficult thing to do. The other important point is that enforcement of a ban technically would be difficult. There was a section in the report, though, on corporate social responsibility, which suggested that corporate enterprises could voluntarily apply a label to their products stating that they were not produced using slave labour. This is a practical suggestion that I think could be applied on a voluntary basis to companies throughout New Zealand.

The report’s conclusion noted: “We received a briefing from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade that set out the difficulties in implementing legislation in New Zealand along the lines of the United States or the Belgian legislation.” I believe that the suggestion made in the introductory speech on this bill that we could do this was somewhat misleading. The report states: “The purpose of the US Alien Tort Claims Act is not primarily to combat the trade in slave labour products; rather, it is a historical piece of legislation to enable tort claims to be filed in the US for breaches by US multinational corporations of international law … The Belgian legislation established a government-endorsed voluntary ‘social label’ …”.

The altruism attached to this bill is absolutely correct, but the applicability of it technically is difficult.

KEITH LOCKE (Green) : The Green Party strongly supports this bill. We are pleased with the response of both Labour and National on this issue. As Maryan Street said, the Green Party presented a minority report when the petition by Geoff White and 17,000 others came before the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. As she said, further discussions in the Labour Party have brought Labour and the Greens together in promoting such legislation.

I was pleased with Tim Groser’s phrase “the conversation continues.” I hope the conversation continues within National, and hopefully at some point we will have consensus in this House on proceeding with such legislation. The big objection of National is that it will be difficult, there will be disputes, and some countries might disagree. Surely, that is the way progress happens.

Hon Steve Chadwick: We can provide leadership.

KEITH LOCKE: We can provide leadership. In some ways there is a bit of a movement from National whereby it is starting to talk about guidelines of a voluntary nature. But why not go beyond that to the Belgian system, which has a law that provides a social labelling system for companies that want to sell products that are not made by slave labour? National could at least move forward to that kind of system.

The House has already shown the importance of community action in relation to legislation, because today we referred a biofuels bill to the select committee. There will be disputes over what are sustainable biofuels, and that question will carry over into community discussions. For example, there has been a debate over Cadbury’s using palm oil in its chocolates. That whole discussion has forced companies to think more ethically, and in the case of this bill, remove slave labour products from their manufacturing distribution system. To address Tim Groser’s point, when there are a whole lot of components in a product, it will force the final producer and retailer of that product to take out the bits that are produced by slave labour, if they want to sell the product.

It is not just the implementation of a law; it is also the discussion in the community, which, as the House recognises, is against slavery, and is prepared to discriminate against any products that embody slave labour. That is exactly what has happened with the existing international legislation, be it the Belgian legislation on social labelling, or the US legislation, where the two Acts—the US Alien Tort Claims Act and the US Tariff Act 1930—are taken together. Three non-governmental organisations, including Global Exchange, actually have taken a case against Nestlé under that US Alien Tort Claims Act. Trade Aid in its submission said that it wants to see the right to private prosecutions under this legislation. That should be included, because it is the pressure of the non-governmental organisations under the laws—if we pass them—that will be effective.

In terms of what Tim Groser said about the difficulty of tracing back to see whether products have been made by slave labour, it is the assistance of non-governmental organisations, through their links back to various countries—India, China, and African countries like the Ivory Coast—that will allow us to determine whether products have been made by slave labour. No doubt some Governments will say that is a restraint of trade. China will say it is a restraint of trade, if we say slave labour and prison labour have been used to produce certain products. India might say it is a restraint of trade, if we say bonded labour has been used to produce certain products. But as a country we have to fight those battles, and in doing so we will have allies around the world.

This House agrees that we do not want to be complicit in any way in products being produced by slave labour. The Green Party is very much in support of the bill.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) : I too rise with my colleagues to support my good colleague Maryan Street in bringing the Customs and Excise (Prohibition of Imports Made by Slave Labour) Amendment Bill forward to the House. Tonight we have heard a number of references to the disgusting historical practice of slavery that is such a blight on the history of a number of nations in this world.

Slavery is still a reality in a number of parts of the world. It is quite easy to stand in the House, speak about it, and say it is a problem, and we have to keep the conversation going; it is something we need to talk about. But here tonight is our opportunity to take one small step to do something about it, and to say that New Zealand is prepared to discuss this issue in a serious way in order to work out how we can reflect, in our law, our abhorrence of slavery and our desire not to consume products that are produced as a result of those who are in slavery.

Today in the world, particularly, as my colleague Chris Carter said, in West Africa, there are numerous examples of slavery that I hope every single person in this House would find abhorrent. It has been said in the past that a lot of it is in countries like Angola, the Sudan, Somalia, or Chad where there has been conflict. Slavery is somehow or other a result of that conflict. People have found themselves kidnapped or captured and then forced into work as part of war. But the reality is it is much more than that in Africa. It is actually in more peaceful countries like Côte d’Ivoire, as Mr Groser said earlier, or Burkina Faso, or Benin. Those are countries that otherwise stand on the world stage as people whom we work with and deal with at places like the United Nations, but in those countries today millions of people are in slavery. It is quite difficult for people to think of a situation where there are brokers scouting for children in poor families in rural areas in places like Benin in order to take children into slavery. There are people who are there doing that.

Then we look around other parts of the world, in places like in Nigeria where there are children’s markets. They have been found within the last 10 years, where a special child-slave stock market is in place in Côte d’Ivoire. Child slaves in Africa are a reality today, and this bill, although it is a long way from being able to change it, to stop it, to end it, is a chance for us as New Zealanders to say in our law that we do not accept products that are produced as a result of slave labour.

We have heard that this is a difficult issue, but it is only a difficult issue because we are not prepared to take the steps, to have the conversation, and to make the law. Lots of things that we debate in this House are difficult. Lots of bills that we send to select committees are not perfect when we send them to a select committee, but we send them there so we can have a conversation where we can come up with language and a law that reflects the values I am hearing about tonight from across the House. It is great to hear the Minister say that slave labour is an issue of concern and an issue that we need to work on, but we could send this bill to a select committee and actually make a difference.

There is precedent for this bill in the world, and I want to correct Mr Hutchison’s statement earlier on, when he said the Alien Tort Claims Act is the US legislation that governed this issue. It is not; it is the US Tariff Act 1930, and it unambiguously bans the entry of goods produced by any form of forced labour, including slave and child labour. So there is international precedent; it is there for us and we can keep working on it. Mr Groser also mentioned some of the other issues, including the fact that we have trade and labour agreements in our free-trade agreements. That is a good start and a good way to engage with countries on the important issues of labour conditions. But this legislation would set the principles by which we would do that.

Let us look at the definition and how it can be put in place. If it is good enough in schedule 1 of the Customs and Excise Act to ban goods produced by prison labour, surely it is good enough to ban goods produced by slave labour.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) : Ā, tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā tātau e te Whare, tēnā koutou katoa e te whānau. Hoi anō, i ahau e rangahau ana i te pire nei ka puta mai te pukuriri. Tata atu ki te kotahi rau rua tekau pāuna te utu ki te hoko i ngā hū omaoma wāhine, Adidas i te Kotahitanga o Ingarangi. Ko tērā te pūtea e riro ai te kaimahi o Adidas mō ngā marama e toru. Kia kaua hoki tātou e pōhēhē he wiki mahi whā tekau hāora noa iho te roa. Whitu tekau hāora te roa o te wiki mahi mō ngā manomano kaimahi o ngā whare hanga-hū o Adidas ki Haina. Kei te takahi a Adidas i ngā ture mahi o Haina, kei te whati anō hoki i ō rātou ake aratohu. Hakoa tērā kei te mahia tōnutia.

Kua whakatūria e Nike ngā whare tōtā i Haina, i Initōnihia, i Whitināmu hoki. E 20 hēneti ia hāora te pūtea ka riro mā te kaimahi ki Whitināmu. Hara i te mea ko te pūtea pāpaku, me te roanga o te wiki mahi noa iho, te raru. Te kino hoki ngā tūāhua mahi o ngā whare tōtā nei. I roto i te wāhanga waru hāora, ka taea te kaimahi ki te haere kotahi ki te wharepaku. Mō te inu wai, e rua ngā wā. Maiangi ai te tangata i te wherū, i te hau kino, i te wera rawa atu. Te mōrikarika hoki o ngā kamupene kaitā nei, e taetae ana ki ēnei whenua, ki te takahi i te wairua tangata. Nā te ngoikore o ngā ture whenua ki te tiaki i te kaimahi, ka tūkinotia te kaimahi.

Nō reira, e tautoko ana te Pāti Māori i tēnei pire kia aukatihia ngā mea kua hangaia ki te whare tōtā, me kī, kua hangaia e te kaimahi taurekareka. Roa te wā e noho tārewa ana tēnei take Whā tau ki muri i heria mai e Trade Aid tētahi petihana ki te Pāremata, i hainatia ai e te 17,000 tāngata, kia aukati i te hoko i ngā mea nō tāwahi kua hangaia e te ringa o te kaimahi taurekareka. Engari, i a rātou e whakarite ana i te petihana nei, ko tā te Kāwanatanga kē, he whakatutuki i ngā kirimana hokohoko watea nō rāwāhi, hakoa horekau he ture tiaki i te kaimahi. Hakoa Reipa, hakoa Nāhinara he ōrite tonu, kāore he paku aha ki a rāua. Engari he kaupapa nui rawa tēnei ki a mātou o te Pāti Māori. I ngā tau e rua ki muri, i puta mai te kupu āwangawanga a te Kai Titiro o te UN mō te mahi taurekareka; nui atu i te tekau mā rua miriona te tokomaha, kua horohia e tēnei ngārara te mahi taurekareka. Nā, kua ara mai te pātai nui: mena ka aukatihia te pūtea ka riro ki ngā kaimahi nei, ka pēhea rātou e whai oranga ai? Kua toitū te Pāti Māori hei kaitautoko i te whakakorenga o te rawa kore. Kei te tino whawhai hoki mātou kia patua i te pōhara e pā ana ki te hunga tamariki. Engari, he pōhēhē noa iho nō tātou kua kore tēnei āhuatanga e kitea i Aotearoa. Hei tā te Roopu Tiaki i ngā Tamariki Pōhara i tērā tau, he hauono te tokomaha o ngā tamariki e noho ana i roto i te whare tino pōhara. Nō reira, me kaha tātou ki te whawhai i ngā kino maha o te ngārara nei. Kei te tautoko pūmau mātou i te pire nei.

Ka huri ngā whakaaro ki tēnei mea te mahi taurekareka, me ōna whakapānga weriweri ki te hunga tamariki, ka koropupū te riri i roto i a mātou. Neke atu i te whā miriona ngā tamariki ki Parīhi, tekau mano ki te Hauauru o Īnia, tekau mā rima mano ki Pakitāna e mahi ana i ngā whare mōrearea ki te tuitui i ngā pōro poiwhana mō ngā kamupene pērā i a Adidas. Nā te kino o ngā tūāhua o ngā whare tuitui nei ka pāngia te tamariki ki te matakerepō, ki te ringa hauā, ki te mamae o te tuarā, ki te mamae o te kakī. Nō reira e tautoko ana mātou i te pire nei?Āe Mārika! I a mātou e tautoko ana i te pire nei, ko te tūmanako kia whai wā te Kāwanatanga ki te aro atu ki ngā āhuatanga o te rawa kore e pā atu ana ki te tamariki. Kia ora tātou katoa e te Whare. Tēnā koutou e te whānau.

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

[Greetings to you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Greetings to us in the House and to all of us, the family. In researching this bill I got very, very angry indeed. One pair of Adidas trainers in the UK can cost anything up to £120 for the latest women’s sports shoes. That is three times as much as a month’s wages for an Adidas worker. And we are not talking a 40 hour week, either. For the thousands of Chinese workers who fill the factories in China, making Adidas trainers, their average working week is 70 hours. That is not only a breach of Adidas’ own workplace standards but also a violation of China’s labour laws. But it still happens.

Nike sweatshops can now be found in Indonesia, China, and Viet Nam. Nike workers in Viet Nam earn on average 20c per hour. It is not just the low pay and the long hours that are the problem, but the conditions are appalling as well. Workers are allowed to go to the bathroom only once in an 8-hour shift. They cannot drink water more than twice a shift. Many of the workplaces have inhumane conditions, causing workers to faint from exhaustion, the fumes, and the heat. It is outrageous that these top corporate giants are able to come into these countries and exploit the fact that they have no protective labour laws in place to look after their workers.

So the Māori Party will certainly support this bill to ban the importation of goods made in whole or in part by slave labour. It has been a long time coming. Four years ago Trade Aid brought a petition to Parliament, signed by some 17,000 people, requesting New Zealand to legislate to ban the importing of slave labour products. But of course, while the petition was being prepared, the Government of the day was busy passing free-trade agreements with little or no protection for workers. Labour or National, it does not seem to matter to either of them.

Well, this is an important matter to us in the Māori Party. Two years ago the UN Special Rapporteur on Contemporary Forms of Slavery said that he was deeply concerned that the minimum estimate of the number of people in slavery is over 12 million and that the problem appears to be increasing. The one issue that has caused some concern for our caucus is that if the slave wages are taken away from these people, what will they live on? The Māori Party has made a conscious commitment to respond to the global call for action against poverty, with a particular focus on the eradication of child poverty.

Of course, it is not as if New Zealand has got its own backyard looking pristine and clean. The Child Poverty Action Group said that in 2008 one in six New Zealand children still lived in a household below the very lowest poverty lines. So we need to tackle the many evils of this monster on all fronts. There is no question that we would not support this bill.

Our anger is particularly profound when we think of the ever-growing problem of child slave labour. Some 4 million children in Brazil, some 10,000 children in western India’s Punjab region, and some 15,000 children in Pakistan are to be found working in unsafe and unhealthy conditions, sewing, of all things, soccer balls for companies like Adidas. The factory conditions are so harsh and dangerous that it is not uncommon for children to lose their eyesight, deform their fingers, suffer from chronic back and neck pain, and more. So will be supporting this bill? Too right! And while we are supporting this bill, maybe there will be some support for our Government taking some action to respond to the persistent poverty that continues to drag us down, including, of course, our shameful record in addressing child poverty. Greetings to us all in the House, and the family .]

TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) : Kia ora. I rise to speak on the Customs and Excise (Prohibition of Imports Made by Slave Labour) Amendment Bill. I start by commending the Hon Maryan Street for bringing the legislation to the House as a member’s bill. Of course, previously the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee spent some time considering the issue.

I start by addressing what others have said: there is a widely accepted feeling in the international community towards slavery; therefore it is not necessary to repeat it. I wish to state clearly that slavery is something that is absolutely not acceptable. Indeed, under international law it is not possible. I believe that all members of this House have a strong view on this issue, and, in fact, there will be few people in New Zealand who do not have a strong view on it. Having said that, indications are that up to 12 million people in the world are involved in some form of slavery or slave labour, and in many cases their human rights are abused or taken away from them. It is a sad reality of the world in which we live in 2009 that some countries still have not recognised that human rights are important. It is also important that as a House we look at effective means to stop this practice and to make people’s lives better. Sadly, I am not sure that a unilateral bill will make the difference that we would all like to make.

There are a number of reasons for this position. As I said, slavery is absolutely prohibited in international law, but we must look for more effective means. I am very happy to say that as a member of Parliament, I will support any action that will have a meaningful effect upon slavery—to prohibit it, stop it, and drive it out of countries elsewhere—but, sadly, this bill will not do that. The reason it will not do it, I believe, is that manufacturing in the world today is much more complex than it was back in 1930, when the United States banned slavery. That legislation was passed in 1930. If we were in the climate of trade, trade law, and trade rules of the world that was in place in 1930, then the bill might have some effect. We must take our obligation seriously. I am not sure—in fact, I doubt greatly—whether if we were to pass the bill into law in New Zealand we would be able to police it or to make it effective, and whether it would have any effect, at all. It is admirable that we pay attention and give voice to the issue, but I think we need to look for real action that will have a real effect.

The Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee debated this issue and reported back to the House in February this year. The committee recommended that the Government continue to pursue vigorously multichannel efforts to eliminate slavery, not simply in law but also in practice. A number of international bodies are focused on the issue—for example, the United Nations Human Rights Council and the International Labour Organization—and a number of conventions that New Zealand is party to are to do with forced labour and the abolition of forced labour.

The OECD has focused on the issue. There has been wide discussion and wide debate on it. The question is whether wide discussion and debate is enough. I believe that the answer to that question is no, it is not enough. Merely discussing this issue in the House or elsewhere will not in itself have the desired effect that we all want. Therefore, what can be done?

I would like members to think back to some years ago. Internationally there was wide discussion around conflict diamonds, primarily coming from West Africa, a part of the world where there has been much fighting and war. Many of these diamonds—in fact, all of them—were taken out of the ground because of slavery. Slaves were held and made to work at gunpoint. Different parts of the world and different countries have said they want to do something about this issue and to ban it. But it was only effectively banned when the world came together and focused on it. We decided that we would ban conflict diamonds, and, therefore, diamonds being produced through slavery in this way effectively stopped. It is my understanding, from reading the newspapers and contacting those involved with this campaign, that very few conflict diamonds are sold in the world today—or at least in developed countries. It is important to recognise that.

The reason it is important is that slavery in other parts of the world will finally be stopped. Not only will it be pushed out of sight but people will have rights, and those rights will be enforced. When the world comes together, we must do so at a multilateral level through the United Nations, in cooperation with others. I commend the Hon Maryan Street, but will not be able to support the bill. Thank you.

PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) : Our world is becoming smaller and our lives more interdependent as the forces of globalisation draw us together. Through travel, through modern communications, and, more than anything else, through the power of global markets, almost every one of us every day—when we put on our clothes in the morning, drink a cup of coffee, pull on our sunglasses, or reach for the cellphone to make a call—is touched by the lives of workers who made the products. That is the case whether those workers are garment factory workers in southern China, coffee farmers in Ethiopia, or child miners in the Congo extracting the cadmium that goes into the batteries of our cellphones. Globalisation has unleashed huge economic potential, but our humanity surely demands that we consider the ethical implications of that interdependence.

The Customs and Excise (Prohibition of Imports Made by Slave Labour) Amendment Bill, brought to the House tonight by my colleague the Hon Maryan Street, asks us to do just that: to consider that products from certain countries where modern slavery continues should be kept out of New Zealand as a protest against the persistence of this plague, which most of us thought had finished in the 1800s. Cocoa from West Africa, rubber from West Africa for car tyres, underwear made in Burma, and jewellery and handmade rugs from South Asia—all of those products come into New Zealand today, and each of them carries the significant risk that it was made by slave labour. Surely in the 20th century we can take a strong, unambiguous stand against slavery by banning the fruits of forced labour from our shores.

It is extraordinary to say it or think it, but according to Anti-Slavery International more than 12 million people in the world today are living in slavery, whether they are workers on cocoa plantations in West Africa, or child labourers working in the carpet industries of Nepal, India, and Pakistan. Slavery is unambiguously prohibited by international law and is considered to be a crime against humanity, yet it continues. There is hereditary slavery in Mauretania and Niger, and debt bondage in India, Nepal, Pakistan, Bolivia, Paraguay, and Peru. In Haiti only last month the UN human rights rapporteur said that thousands of unpaid child labourers are trapped in a form of modern slavery. There are regular reports in the news media of parents in China selling their children into slavery.

The bill amends the Customs and Excise Act to make goods produced in whole or in part by slave labour prohibited imports. It will require some research into which products are made by slave labour. Our foreign affairs officials told the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, when it was considering Trade Aid’s petition, that doing such research would be too difficult a hurdle to get over. It may not be easy, but we currently have a ban, as my colleagues have pointed out, on goods made by prison labour, which is allowed by international trade laws. Surely having that is sufficient precedent to convince the doubters and the nitpickers.

I congratulate Trade Aid—New Zealand’s fair trade movement—on its campaign on this issue. I also congratulate my colleague the Hon Maryan Street on sponsoring the bill, and Charles Chauvel on drafting it. I urge colleagues on all sides of the House to consider the magnitude of evil represented by modern slavery, and then to consider what is being asked of this House here and now. Can we not do our bit as global citizens to marginalise and stigmatise those who would trade in the products of slave labour? Is it really so difficult to do what is right?

I listened to the Hon Tim Groser tonight wax lyrical about the complexities of global supply chains and the fact that many products today comprise component parts from different sources. I listened to Todd McClay talk about “blood diamonds” and how it took the entire world coming together to find a solution. No one is saying tonight that trade bans can solve every problem. No one is saying it would be easy or simple to make a difference. But this measure would send a powerful message, in that New Zealand would be joining the US and Belgium in taking a stand and putting this ban into legislation.

Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) : I first pay tribute to my gifted colleague Charles Chauvel for his assistance in drafting the Customs and Excise (Prohibition of Imports Made by Slave Labour) Amendment Bill. I also pay tribute to members who have spoken with seriousness and some gravitas on the issue, because it deserves nothing less.

I will quote from schedule 1 of the Customs and Excise Act 1996, which my bill seeks to amend. It states: “Goods manufactured or produced wholly or in part by prison labour, or within or in connection with any prison, jail, or penitentiary, excluding a bona fide gift made by a prisoner for the personal use of a private individual, also goods similar in character to those manufactured or produced in such institutions when sold or offered for sale by any person, firm, or corporation having a contract for the manufacture or production of such articles in such institutions, or by an agent of such person, firm, or corporation, or when originally purchased from or transferred by any such contractor.” It is quite complicated, but it has not been beyond the wit of somebody to come up with a clause to prohibit the importation of goods produced wholly or in part by prison labour. It has not been beyond the wit of somebody to come up with that clause. It is not beyond our wit collectively to come up with a solution to the difficulties of definition and enforcement.

The world is changing. The old economic order is no more, and advocates of it and of the old economic orthodoxy no longer have a leg to stand on. This is the moment to attempt to find new ways through. This is the moment to attempt to find new financial structures, new economic agreements, new transparency and accountability, and a new social contract. This is the moment when we should be brave, imaginative, and creative, and more than anything, because we all agree with the purpose of this bill, we should be able collectively to arrive at a workable solution. Just because something is hard, that does not make it impossible, and it certainly does not make it not worth trying.

I appreciate the words of the Minister of Trade, Tim Groser, who said that the conversation will continue. I look forward to engaging further in the conversation about how we might achieve the ends of this bill. But I have to say that an effort of will is required for this to be done. It cannot be beyond the wit of this House and the officials who serve it to come up with a workable solution to a problem that we collectively identify. I appeal to the National Government to change its mind on this vote, so that possibilities can be explored. Simply seeking to have this legislation referred to a select committee for consideration would be an act of empathy, and act of principle, that at least demonstrates that the conversation is open and is still happening.

One thing we can be certain of is that if we do nothing, nothing will happen. This is the moment when we need to think about new ways of transacting our relationships, and of accounting not only to our own citizens but to citizens internationally for our actions and the choices we make. This is an ethical issue. Ethical trade will in the future be the only trade that is allowed, and there is no reason why this House should not be preparing this country for that. Thank you.

RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga) : I move, That the Te Rā o Matariki Bill/Matariki Day Bill be now read a first time. E te Manu Kōrero, rau rangatira mā tēnā koutou katoa. Tēnā hoki koutou ngā kaitautoko, koia nei taku pire tuatahi hei whakanui i a Matariki. Nō reira, e ngā mana, e ngā reo, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

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

[Greetingsto you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and the many chiefs, greetings to you all. Greetings also to supporters. This is my first bill to celebrate Matariki. So to the powers and languages, greetings to you, greetings to you, and greetings to you all.]

The stars have certainly been in alignment for this important bill to be read today. At the midpoint of Māori Language Week we are proposing the introduction of a significant occurrence within the Māori calendar: the celebration of Matariki, the Māori new year. The theme for Māori Language Week this week is Te Reo i te Hapori, Māori Language in the Community. There is no better expression of community passion than in the Matariki festivals and celebrations held around the country.

The first reading of the Matariki Day Bill comes hot on the heels of an important report from the Ministry for Culture and Heritage, called Cultural Indicators for New Zealand 2009. The report sets a very clear direction ahead for what the ministry describes as a “distinctly ‘New Zealand’ cultural identity”. Three key themes underlie the concept: first, New Zealanders identify their common culture and heritage as being distinctive to this nation; second, expressions of our culture are valued because they link past, present, and future generations of New Zealanders; and, third, Māori culture is valued for the contribution it makes to New Zealand’s identity.

The Matariki Day Bill, therefore, is an opportunity to embrace and welcome the chance to stand proud of our distinctly New Zealand cultural identity. The bill is an idea that has been waiting to happen. Over 15 years ago artists Diane Prince, Iwa Holmes, and others formed a trust to reintroduce Matariki celebrations. Jim Rahi, a member of the trust, named it Te Whakanui i a Matariki, and in 1995 Pipitea Marae celebrated it in style. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou.

Nowadays Matariki is an event that is almost universally celebrated around the motu. Matariki builds on a groundswell of support for a new indigenous event to celebrate the unique place in which we live, and to pay our respects to the land, the people, and the history. Matariki is a positive occasion—literally, the dawning of a new age. Matariki has traditionally been a time for planting and planning activities for the year ahead, for valuing our past, and for preparing for our future. All those activities are significant steps in nation-building. Matariki symbolises the optimum time for new harvests. In earlier times our people used to make offerings to the gods Rongo, Uenuku, and Whiro to protect our crops for the coming year.

Matariki is a very special time of the year, a time in which we pause and reflect on the year that was and the year that will be. On this unique indigenous occasion we seek to value our past and to preserve history, knowledge, culture, and traditional practices, while at the same time preparing for the future. I ask the House what other days in the year we are able to say we celebrate the indigenous peoples of the land. Some might say that Waitangi Day is such a day, but Waitangi Day is about the birth of our nation, the bringing together of two peoples, and the signing of the sacred covenant Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Matariki is a festival in which we can truly commemorate the indigenous origins of Aotearoa by giving respect to the unique customs and culture of tangata whenua.

What is exciting about the promotion of Matariki is that it also joins us in the special relationships we have with our brothers and sisters in Te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa, the peoples of the Pacific. In Samoa they refer to the time of year as Matali’i, in Tahiti it is known as Matari’i, in Hawaii it is known as Makali’i, and in Rarotonga and Aotearoa it is known as Matariki.

The glittering star cluster that signals Matariki was celebrated by our ancestors mai rā anō. In fact, Dr Rāwiri Taonui from Canterbury University suggests that the celebrations continued until after 1900, with the last traditional festival known in 1940.

The inspiration to mark Matariki as a day of national importance has emerged from the people with the drive for the revitalisation of te reo and the renaissance of Māori. It is a breath of fresh air into the journey for nationhood. For those with green passions, the moment of Matariki rising connects to an interest in astronomy and our natural world. For historians, Matariki is a time to treasure our past. For all New Zealanders, Matariki offers us a unique opportunity to connect in a positive celebration that takes its origins from this land.

Just over a month ago the Mayor of Waitakere, Bob Harvey, called for a new public holiday to mark Matariki. It is a call that has come from all corners. The Republican Movement of Aotearoa New Zealand wrote to all of New Zealand’s mayors in May of this year, and received responses from several who were already planning to host Matariki celebrations. At Christchurch’s Ngā Hau e Whā national marae the Matariki event is for everyone, as demonstrated by the range of multicultural communities taking part. In Te Arawa, Ānaru Rangiheuea supports the concept of Matariki as a national event as a way of what he suggests is “celebrating this special country we live in”. Over in Ngāti Kahungunu territory, Ngāhiwi Tomoana called for making Matariki a public holiday, concluding: “I believe that future generations of New Zealanders will embrace it with gusto.” Even in this House, Green co-leader Metiria Turei has promoted the call of the people to make Matariki a public holiday.

If we are ever going to move forward as a nation, we need to find things that connect us. It was heartening to hear the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage, the Hon Chris Finlayson, stand in the Chamber today and proclaim that Māori culture, and celebrations of that culture, is part of New Zealand’s unique international brand. He went further, recognising that the strength and vitality of Māori culture, and celebrations of that culture, help to set us apart on the international stage. That is all so true. We know that his voice is not a lone voice in the National caucus. Would it not be great to allow the public a voice to open the debate about whether New Zealanders would like an opportunity to celebrate our distinctive cultural identity by the introduction of a Matariki Day?

What possible defence can there be for maintaining the “day after” holidays—the day after 1 January and the day after Christmas Day—or for maintaining events to commemorate a man who devised a gunpowder plot to blow up the English Parliament, yet to flatly refuse—

Hone Harawira: May I continue, Mr Assistant Speaker?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): You certainly may.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) : What possible defence can there be for maintaining the “day after” holidays—the day after 1 January and the day after Christmas Day—or for maintaining events that commemorate a man who devised a gunpowder plot to blow up the English Parliament, yet to flatly refuse to engage in conversation about an indigenous-inspired event for Aotearoa? All we want is to let the people have a say.

What does it tell us when the Prime Minister was asked in June 2009 about whether he would support Matariki Day and responded: “I can’t say I have given any great thought to the matter but it’s probably a no,”? The Te Rā o Matariki Bill is the opportunity to give great thought to supporting an event that is celebrated by many nationalities throughout Aotearoa. It is an opportunity to embrace a celestial event, a festival that is inclusive of this place and respectful of indigenous origins. It is an opportunity to listen to others, to open the door, and to have the conversation, not to say no before the debate has even begun.

Today Business New Zealand launched a set of proposals entitled Setting New Zealand Apart, which is a contribution to a national conversation about how we can perform better. We believe that the bill is the ideal means by which to improve New Zealand’s productivity, while at the same time boosting cultural identity. A national celebration of our unique indigenous beginnings, a day in the midst of winter, when workers could be revitalised physically, mentally, and spiritually, could well set Aotearoa apart as a nation that cares for its people, workers, families, and communities.

In closing, I return to the wisdom of Dr Rāwiri Taonui: “Some say that Matariki should become a public holiday. Good idea. The small constellation of glittering jewels reflects our journey as one nation, two peoples and many cultures—a time for New Zealanders to shine as one.” Kia ora tātou.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): The member Rahui Katene is required by Standing Order 279(1) to indicate in her introductory speech the select committee to which the bill is intended to go. Could the member Hone Harawira indicate which committee the bill will go to if the House agrees to it.

HONE HARAWIRA: The Māori Affairs Committee.

SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) : Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I will start by acknowledging and congratulating Rahui Katene on what I am sure will always be a significant day, if for no other reason than the Te Rā o Matariki Bill/Matariki Day Bill is her first member’s bill, which is no small feat. I acknowledge her extended whānau, who are here today, no doubt to support her on this occasion. No one who has heard the member speak can doubt her sincerity, her conviction, and her integrity of purpose in bringing this bill to the House. I pay tribute to her and to the Māori Party for fleshing out this debate, and for the work they have done in bringing to the fore issues to do with and concerning Māori in this Parliament.

I have a growing respect for the members of the Māori Party, and I hope it is a mutual thing. I have got to know Hone Harawira a little on the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee, and Te Ururoa Flavell as a member who shares with me Tauranga Moana. I have got to know other members of the Māori Party, as well. I respect Rahui Katene and the Māori Party, and I respect what they are trying to achieve, at least as I understand it, in bringing this bill forward. They come to this seeking not just to ask for a holiday on Matariki Day but also to raise issues of Māori culture and tradition and to bring them to the fore in Aotearoa New Zealand. It is, as I think the member said, quite apt that we have this bill before the House this week, Māori Language Week. As the member said, it must have been in the stars.

But even though I support the purpose, if you like, and integrity behind this bill in bringing Māori issues, traditions, and custom to the fore, I do not support nor believe that the mechanics of this bill are necessary or even right in terms of fulfilling the purposes, albeit laudable, that Rahui Katene and the Māori Party have. In short, my view is quite clear. We do not require a public holiday to mark Matariki, or, more broadly, to raise awareness of Māori custom and tradition issues in our nation.

The reality, as I perceive it, in Tauranga Moana and in other parts of this nation, is that there is a great movement towards events and traditions like Matariki. Last year I was at a Matariki ball in Tauranga, although this year, through parliamentary commitments, I could not make it. I am also aware of a number of other functions in my own electorate to mark this time of the year. My point is that I do not believe it is necessary to have a public holiday to mark Matariki in order to have respect for it and an awareness of Māori traditions—our traditions. It is simply not correct to say, in principle, that in order to celebrate something and to believe in something, even passionately, a holiday is required. If that was the case, we would have holidays on many other occasions as well.

I will not be supporting this bill and National members will not be supporting this bill, notwithstanding our respect for Rahui Katene, the Māori Party, and the integrity with which they bring this bill to the House. I say to Opposition members that this party does not come here with this bill to play petty politics, and neither should they.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) : Ā, tēnā koe. Tēnei e tū tautoko ana ngā mihi ki a koe, Rāhui. Ko tēnei tō pire tuatahi e hari koa ana te ngākau kua whakaarohia e koe mō tēnei kaupapa hei whakanui i a Matariki i roto i tēnei Whare Pāremata, nō reira, tēnā koe, tēnā koutou. E tū ana ki te whakamārama i ngā whakaaro kei waenganui i a mātou te Rōpū Reipa me whakaaetia te haeretanga o tēnei pire ki te komiti whakahaere kia āta whakaarohia, kia āta wānangahia ngā take katoa.

Anā, kua rongohia e tātou ngā whakaaro o Nāhinara e pā ana ki tēnei. Āhua ohorere ahau ki ōna whakaaro nā te mea ko ōna whanaunga kei waenganui i a Ngāti Maniapoto, e tino tautoko ana i tēnei pire. Ahakoa te aha, ko te mea nunui kua whakaaetia e mātou kia haere tēnei pire ki te komiti whakahaere ki te whakarongo ki ngā kōrero katoa. Ka mutu tērā, ka whakatakoto kei waenganui i a mātou me ngā kaupapa e pā ana ki ngā take o tēnei pire, tēnā koutou. Ahakoa kua tapa koe i tēnei pire, ko te pire o Matariki me kaua e warewaretia, ko ngā whetū katoa kei waenganui i raro i tērā kaupapa, a Waiiti, Waitā, Ururangi, Tupuānuku, Tupuārangi, Waipunarangi me te mātāmua a Matariki. Nō reira, ka nui te mihi atu ki a koe.

[Greetings to you. I rise in support of the acknowledgments accorded you, Rāhui. This is your first bill and I am really pleased that you have thought to celebrate this with a bill on Matariki in this House of Parliament, so greetings to you and your colleagues. I rise to explain that we in the Labour Party will support this bill going to a select committee so that all aspects of it are carefully considered and deliberated.

Now we have heard the views from the National member. I am somewhat startled by his views, because his relatives in Ngāti Māniapoto really support this bill. Regardless of that, the most important thing is that we have agreed that this bill should go to a select committee so that everything about it is heard. When that has been done, then it will come back before us with all the relevant details. Congratulations. While you called this bill the Matariki bill, we must never forget that it is not just about the elder sister, Matariki, but it is also about the younger sisters, Waiti, Waitā, Ururangi, Tupuānuku, Tupuārangi, and Waipunarangi, as well. But I commend you highly .]

I certainly endorsed the comments directed towards Rahui Katene that commended her for putting forward this bill, Te Rā o Matariki Bill/Matariki Day Bill, for the House to consider. It is timely. It is just past the season of Matariki, so it is timely that we consider this issue.

The comments made by the previous speaker, Simon Bridges, were noted, but it might be of some interest to him that many people in Ngāti Maniapoto support this particular bill. It should get a fair and full hearing at a select committee. Labour will support this bill’s first reading and its going to a select committee, which will hear all the debate on whether an extra holiday should be created and all the issues associated with it.

I would suggest that celebrating Matariki is more relevant for many of today’s New Zealanders and future New Zealanders than, perhaps, celebrating Queen’s Birthday is, but let us see. The debate should be had, and, in its full extent, the bill should be reported back to the House for consideration. I know that members speaking after me will draw a comparison with, and allude to, other substantial issues such as the impact on the Holidays Act and working people, and the idea of swapping Matariki as a public holiday for another public holiday.

Perhaps of more interest to the Prime Minister is the extensive calendar of events that has been in operation for the last 5 years or so—and ramping up—amongst our communities to celebrate Matariki. Rahui alluded to some of those events in our rohe, but I know that the New Zealand Māori Tourism Council will be absolutely thrilled at having the opportunity to give a focal point to a celebration that a number of other events in the Māori tourism calendar hinge on. I am sure that it will see fit also to offer some thoughts about how this event will bring a greater focus to the indigenous contribution to the tourism landscape, and how it can add value to our profile in addition to our clean, green image. So it is well done.

Also, finally, Te Paki o Matariki is a cluster of stars that sit on a flag back in the Waikato-Tainui rohe—on the Kīngitanga flag—for a deliberate purpose: Te Paki o Matariki in itself represents the ambition and aspiration of those who support the movement, and the values of sustainability.

It is timely also in a recession that we give mention to Matariki, because it is about a sustainable way of being. That is the whole-world view that we bring in association with the values, towards this particular star cluster. It is important because it recognises the heritage of our people as navigators, as travellers, as adventurers, as people who looked beyond the horizon. But it is important also because we knew that we needed to be able to survive by our own efforts and our ability to look after ourselves. Just as much as we celebrate Matariki for the harvest yet to come and the harvest past, it is an aspirational statement about our intention for this country that Matariki lead the way for a sustainable future for all New Zealanders, so I certainly commend the member on that front, as well.

Finally, can I mention that this bill is a great opportunity for the House to consider not just a national holiday but perhaps the framing of the future direction that our country may take. I hope the debate is not politicised to the extent that people diminish the argument by referring to Matariki as just another holiday, because it is not just about another holiday; it is about framing the national identity of this country, and firmly fixing our contribution as indigenous people to the framing of that debate.

Nō reira, ki a koe anō, koutou i raro i te Pāti Māori, tino mihi rawa atu ki a koutou, tātou katoa.

[So I really acknowledge you and those of the Māori Party once again, and all of us as well.]

Thank you.

PAUL QUINN (National) :E te Mana Whakawā o te Whare me aku hoa mema Pāremata aku mihi atu ki a koutou katoa i roto i te Wiki o te Reo Māori, tēnā koutou. Kia ora huihui tātou katoa.

[Greetings to you, the Assistant Speaker of the House and all fellow parliamentarians during Māori Language Week. Greetings to us all assembled here.]

Firstly, at the start of this speech I join with other speakers before me in commending and acknowledging Rahui Katene for bringing forward the Te Rā o Matariki Bill/Matariki Day Bill as her first member’s bill. I think the sincerity and deep-seated roots of her beliefs are shown in the fact that she has made this particular bill the one that she has brought before us. The reason I stand is really as a mark of respect and to share with members my views, because I think it is important that we have the conversation on a kanohi ki te kanohi basis, rather than not having it and letting members wonder where I sit on this bill. That is the reason that I stand in respect of this bill.

I say at the outset that I fully support the concept of celebrating Matariki, but unfortunately I do not support this bill, and National does not support this bill, for the reasons that I will explain shortly. I have three limbs to this conversation. The first is to ask why we have public holidays, which is a fundamental question that we must ask ourselves. The term “public holidays” stems, in fact, from holy days. That is what public holidays were originally about—holy days. At the outset we had Christmas Day, Good Friday, and Easter Sunday. We have subsequently added other holidays. We have added Anzac Day, which celebrates the fallen and the people who have defended this country—and they are recognised in the memorial plaques that surround this Chamber. We have also added Waitangi Day, which is a day to celebrate our nationhood.

Hone Harawira: The holiest of holies.

PAUL QUINN: The holiest of holies. We have added New Year. I say to myself that, OK, there is not much of a holy day about that, but I guess it is an Anglo-Saxonised version of celebrating the fact that it is 1 January. OK, that might just scrape in.

But then I ask, why do we celebrate Boxing Day? Why do we celebrate the second day of January? Why do we celebrate Labour Day? The reason we celebrate Labour Day is that it represents the labour movement’s desire to have 8 hours’ work, 8 hours’ rest, and 8 hours’ recreation. On that basis, why do we not have a business day, or an entrepreneurial day? We could make the same argument for having such holidays. We celebrate the Queen’s birthday, but the day on which we celebrate her birthday happens to be the birthday of her grandfather. Someone should tell me why we celebrate it on that day. We have provincial holidays. We have all those holidays. That tells us that the whole basis of public holidays has changed. That is the background as to why we have got into this situation.

I now turn to the second limb of my argument. I think it is very important for a country to celebrate its culture, and I am proud to stand here and say the greatest advance in this country in terms of celebrating our cultural heritage came under a National administration. I refer to the kōhanga reo movement, which was introduced and supported by a former National Government.

DARIEN FENTON (Labour) : Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker Barker. Tēnā koe, Rahui, and tēnā koe, Nanaia, who has just left the Chamber. I thank them for their contributions to this important discussion that we need to be having.

Labour supports this bill, Ta Rā o Matariki Bill/Matariki Day Bill, going to a select committee, because we think a conversation on whether there should be a uniquely indigenous holiday among New Zealand’s public holidays is one that we need to have. I congratulate Rahui Katene on having the bill drawn from the ballot, and on bringing this matter to the attention of Parliament.

However, there are some other issues going on at the moment that I must bring to the attention of Parliament and the public. These are issues of workers’ rights for all New Zealanders—for workers, for Māori workers, for New Zealanders. While we consider this bill tonight, the irony is that New Zealanders’ existing public holidays, let alone new public holidays, and their annual leave are under attack from this National Government. We have yet another so-called review of the Holidays Act going on, as we speak. Although National has sought to offer soothing words about that review, members will forgive me if I am somewhat cynical, because we have been here before. There is no reason for cashing up the fourth week of leave, other than to reduce the entitlement to leave. There is no other reason for poking around relevant daily pay, which is in the review, other than to reduce the pay that workers receive when they are sick. Although I support the conversation we are having, I am concerned about what is happening in the background.

To be fair, National did signal those issues in its manifesto. But for good measure it has thrown in, without warning, another couple of things that were not in the manifesto. It seems to me that they are there only because some businesses have them on their black list; we hear that again and again. First there is the proposal to allow workers to transfer public holidays. I suppose they could transfer a Matariki public holiday. The example that is used is Ramadan. The idea came from the Employers and Manufacturers Association in submissions on a bill last year. I think my suspicions that this proposal is a National Government ploy to reduce entitlements to extra pay while working on a public holiday, which Labour introduced, are spot on. Interestingly enough, this proposal has now become one of the 50 suggestions from Business New Zealand about how to improve New Zealand’s productivity—please, for goodness’ sake—along with things like privatising accident compensation and scaling back workers’ rights. It really lacks imagination.

Let us be clear about what National’s plan means. If workers agree to swap one of the existing public holidays, such as Christmas Day, for a day at the end of Ramadan or, indeed, Matariki, and they work on Christmas Day, which is the official public holiday, they will get no extra pay for working on that day—no time and a half, which Labour introduced in the last few years when it was in Government. The Government wants to dilute the right to public holidays across the board, and it wants to force workers to work for no extra pay. That is what National wants to do, and I think it is disgraceful.

What has emerged out of the blue, with no prior warning, is the old Easter Sunday shop trading debate. We all have issues; we all have a different opinion about whether the shops should be open on Easter Sunday. This Parliament has tried over several years to find a measure whereby people can agree whether shops should be open on Easter Sunday. Each time it has been voted down in a conscience vote. I am one who has voted and will continue to vote against that sort of proposal, because retail workers are adamantly opposed to it, and why should they not be? After all, we have only 3.5 days left in the whole calendar year when workers are not forced to work and when shops are not open. Why would this latest attempt to sort it out work when Parliament has failed to find a solution that we could all agree to?

Although Labour supports this bill, I think we should have the conversation, and I welcome it, I have to say the background stuff, the noise that is going on with the Holidays Act—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): I regret to advise the member that her time has expired.

METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) : Kia ora. Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. I want to express the Green Party’s support for the Te Rā o Matariki Bill/Matariki Day Bill; our nine votes will support its referral to a select committee. I also stand in support of my Māori Party colleagues who brought this bill to the House. As I well know, members’ bills are hard fought for, rare, and deserve a great deal of consideration, certainly more than what I think the National Party has given to bills this evening.

Firstly, I say the Green Party particularly supports the concept of a holiday in the period between Queen’s Birthday and Labour Day. One of the issues we have with this bill, and we would be happy to explore it in the select committee, is the time period for this holiday, because in the bill it is quite early. None the less, we fully support there being an additional holiday for workers and their families, particularly at this time when families are under a great deal more pressure and stress than they were under. The opportunity to spend more time with each other on days that workers can have off is a very good thing, and the Green Party fully supports that.

One issue that has not been raised sufficiently in the debate is that this bill is a means to recognise tikanga Māori in a legislative form—and it is a fairly minor form. This would be the first time that this has happened in legislation in any real way outside the colonial framework. This bill is about recognising a Māori approach to or a Māori world view of the nature of the cosmos and time periods. It is about recognising pre-colonial Māori legitimacy, and there is no debate in this House about that. National is all talk. It is concerned only about industry. Earlier today we heard about National’s support for the fishing industry and that it is only interested in supporting employers.

• Debate interrupted.