KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) : I move, That the Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill be now read a third time. The repeal of this Act reflects the overall change of military tactics and organisation that has occurred in the 100 years since the Military Manoeuvres Act was originally passed. During the tragedy of World War I, military strength was largely measured by the number of available fighting soldiers. The Military Manoeuvres Act allowed for these large formations of soldiers to practise and train en masse, and were the recognised tactics of the day, which are now known for their tactics episode on the Western Front and were decidedly flawed.

Since this time, military tactics have significantly evolved. Although the courage and the fortitude of our soldiers remains unchanged, technology, rather than weight of numbers, has largely become the deciding factor in military engagement. The New Zealand Defence Force today demonstrates where we have come in the last hundred years. The serving men and women of the Royal New Zealand Navy, the Royal New Zealand Air Force, and the New Zealand Army are all highly trained, highly motivated individuals. They utilise complex and state-of-the-art equipment that requires extensive training and ability to use, and are mostly deployed in small, agile, and independent formations. Although they are a fraction of the size of our forces during the two world wars, the New Zealand Defence Force is more agile, more effective, and more situated to the geopolitical requirements of the present world today.

The Military Manoeuvres Act is a relic from an uncertain period of New Zealand’s history. This history has been ably recorded elsewhere and will not be forgotten. The law in New Zealand should remain current and uncluttered. This repeal bill will address a broader issue of older legislation clogging up the books. This Government’s focus is on providing better public services and cleaning up and improving the quality of regulations.

I would like to say as a parliamentarian that it is one’s duty to look at the aspects where we can contribute. By repealing this Act I want to bring awareness to the problem—which has also been pointed out by Sir Geoffrey Palmer—that there are many redundant Acts that remain in force that needlessly clutter the statute book. These Acts add clutter but provide no value to the statute book. By repealing this Act now, and other Acts, we will be cleaning up our statute book. In the words of Sir Geoffrey Palmer, the law and the statute book should have as little dead wood as possible.

The Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill is an indication that there are many bills that are out of date in today’s context. The Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill, which is on the Order Paper, has repealed 31 Acts that have been identified as redundant. They are no longer needed and are completely unnecessary. We believe in better regulation, and less regulation is essential to the 21st century New Zealand.

Finally, I would like to thank the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, then chaired by my colleague John Hayes, for careful consideration of the bill. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank all the parties who have supported this bill. It is time to make these changes now. Defence policy is a long-term commitment. National is giving our defence forces some certainty about their future, and we are preparing them to meet the challenges they may face, looking forward. I commend this bill to the House.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) : Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi went looking for a way to contribute to Parliament, and he came up with the repeal of the Military Manoeuvres Act through the Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill. Well done, Mr Bakshi! You have found your way to contribute. I suspect that this will be the highlight of that member’s contribution to Parliament, however long his career is in this place. This is a day to celebrate. This is a day to savour. He can lap up all the faux applause that he will get from his colleagues for bringing this pointless and meaningless bill through the House.

Mr Bakshi is absolutely right that Sir Geoffrey Palmer did suggest that this was a piece of legislation that could be got rid of. There is a way of doing that—that is, through a Statutes Amendment Bill. That would be the appropriate way of doing it. This is an absolute waste of a members’ day. It is a waste of a space in the members’ bill ballot.

Hon Trevor Mallard: So is the member.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Mr Mallard might say that, but I will not go that far. I want only to note that the Labour Party supports this bill because it does no harm. It certainly will not do the nation any good. It will not fix the economy. It will not do anything useful whatsoever. And for that reason, Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi is probably absolutely the appropriate member to have in charge of this bill.

JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) : Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this bill, the Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill, brought by my colleague Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi to our Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, and processed through the ballot system here in our Parliament. The select committee was unanimous in its support for the bill, and the National Government supports this bill.

The repeal of the Act supports the clean-up of legislation that is no longer necessary, thereby reducing bureaucracy and tidying up our books, and I think that that is a very good thing to be doing. We believe in better regulations and in less regulation, because it is not required for the 21st century. What is required is a lean military system that is suited to our strategic view of the environment that we find ourselves in, or we think we are going to be finding ourselves in, over the next 20 or 30 years.

We want to make our Public Service more innovative, more efficient, and more effective so that people in our communities can see a Government that is running a very efficient administration. We do not want our legislation cluttered with this Act, and there are other Acts of a similar sort that also need to be taken out of the book. So I hope that when Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi completes this exercise, he will go back to our legislation and look for further Acts to take the same action with. It is a very, very good idea. We need to—

Dr David Clark: This isn’t why we voted you FEC chair.

JOHN HAYES: Ha, ha! To the best of the Defence Force’s knowledge, it does not think that this Act has been used in the last 30 years. It was specifically enacted to deal with extraordinary circumstances related to mobilisation in the First World War. It was seen as necessary by successive Governments, including the 9 years of the party now in Opposition, to keep the legislation just in case a war occurred again and land needed to be appropriated. But this bill addresses the broader issue, I think, of old legislation clogging up the books. I commend my colleague for bringing this bill to the House and pushing it through the system. Thank you.

Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) : This bill should not have been called the Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill; this should simply have been called the “Members’ Manoeuvres Bill”. This is simply a waste of time. For the members opposite to rail about how wonderful it is to get rid of regulation, they could have managed a lot more efficiently by shoving this, along with a lot of other unnecessary legislation, into a Statutes Amendment Bill. They know it. This was simply put in place to clog up the members’ ballot, and I am not going to take any more time of the House in debating it. We support the import of this bill. We absolutely oppose the way it has been ushered through the House.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) : We come now in the House to the end of this critical exercise of repealing the Military Manoeuvres Act 1915. With all the twists and turns of this Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill through the first reading, select committee deliberation, second reading, and now the third reading, the twists and turns that have characterised the passage of this bill can only have been to good effect. It has allowed us an opportunity to express the collective wisdom of this House and insight into issues pertaining to military manoeuvres. It is not too much to say, I think, that the collective wisdom of this House has been spent on this bill.

I heard our Labour colleague Mr Lees-Galloway suggest—it cannot have been; did he say that it had been a waste of this House’s time? How could that be? How could it be, when it has given the House the opportunity to express its depth of wisdom on an Act that has been unused for 30 years and that is about to be repealed? We heard our colleague from the Government Mr Hayes, who said that not only did it allow us to express our wisdom on this legislation but also it was an expression of Government efficiency in repealing the Act. We can only agree, because by removing this Act from the statute book we can ensure that there is no chance of it being used for the next 30 years, as well.

I now feel obliged to advise the House that, notwithstanding that in the second reading I had floated the notion of introducing a member’s bill to bring it back in, the burden of this debate has now persuaded me against that line of approach. So—[Interruption] No, no, I give an undertaking—a categorical, unqualified undertaking—that that will not occur. I have no intention of bringing in another member’s bill to bring this Act back in. The House has spoken. The Green Party joins others in supporting the repeal of this Act. It is with a light-hearted feeling of cooperation and unity that is unsullied that we say let this Act be repealed.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) : It gives me great pleasure to speak on this Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill and, indeed, to congratulate Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi on the initiative he had in clearing out the Order Paper. I must say, I am deeply relieved that Dr Kennedy Graham has decided not to bring in another member’s bill to replace the Act. The only sort of bill that perhaps could replace this one might be a “Labour Party Leaders’ Manoeuvres Bill”, reminiscent of the Grand Old Duke of York leading the men up the hill, but in this case dispatching its leaders at the top and returning empty-handed. Maybe we will see more of that, but, indeed—

Iain Lees-Galloway: That’s not as good as Ken.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON: No, no, indeed, it is not. I must admit, Ken was indeed a lighthouse in Parliament today, and it is great to see the Greens being so thoughtful about legislation such as this.

I do want to say that there were some derisory comments made in the second reading by the Hon Maryan Street about the sense of this bill, but one of the marvels of it is that it is a melody of brevity. Indeed, during the select committee process, with the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee so ably led by John Hayes, the bill was actually cut down by 40 percent, becoming even more melodic in terms of its brevity.

This has been a great triumph for Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi. It is not often that a member’s bill goes right through. He needs to be congratulated, and I commend this bill to the House.

RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First) : I am pleased to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak to the third reading of the Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill. The possibility of this bill passing and the consequent repeal of the Military Manoeuvres Act 1915 have been a source of great consternation amongst the New Zealand First caucus since our first opportunity to speak on this bill. The bill has gained importance in recent days, which was not the case previously. The world is an uncertain and ever-changing place. New threats can and do present themselves without warning, and from the most unexpected of quarters. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, and New Zealand must be prepared to meet any new threats as and when they arise.

Without recourse to the Military Manoeuvres Act 1915, it is altogether possible that our defence forces may not be able to prepare for what New Zealand First has perceived as a possible new threat to our national security. It has come to our attention that a nation with whom we have until recently enjoyed a good—if, in some ways, inconsequential—relationship may now be emerging as a potential enemy. Thanks—or perhaps it should be no thanks—to recent comments made by the Leader of the House, it is possible that Finland may now harbour hostile intentions towards this country. The Finn, may I remind honourable members, is a capable and noteworthy adversary, with a long and proud military tradition, and a history of victories over far larger and more powerful opponents.

Finland is, as we have heard in recent days, a nation similar to ours in many regards. In terms of population, Finland is not very much larger than New Zealand: there are a little fewer than 5.5 million Finns. Unlike us, however, Finland is well prepared for the eventualities of war. Finland’s defence forces are incomparably larger and more powerful than New Zealand’s. Finland’s professional military numbers in excess of 35,000 personnel. It is three times greater than our own. In addition to this, Finland employs universal military training, giving it an active reserve of more than 350,000 trained soldiers. In comparison, our own already meagre Territorial Force, numbering just 2,500, is currently faced with a reduction from three battalions down to two, and the loss of some 600 uniformed positions. It would appear that this Government’s continual cost-cutting and downsizing of New Zealand’s military may be a very unwise oversight indeed, particularly if we are going to start picking fights with such powerfully armed nations as Finland.

Finnish forces, it has to be remembered, defeated Napoleon’s troops, and five times between 1918 and 1944 they beat the Soviets, before ejecting a superior force of Nazi Germans from the Lapland territory at the end of the Second World War. In the winter war of 1944 the Finns proved themselves to be resourceful and cunning, using simple technology and advanced tactics to overcome the Soviet armoured divisions. Finnish soldiers would hide behind the trees as Russian tanks approached, leaping out at the last minute to halt the advance of the armour by jamming logs into the tracks, and then dashing back into cover. Russian soldiers who ventured from the safety of their tanks to remove the logs would be shot, and the ones who stayed inside would freeze to death. Either way, the Finns claimed the victory and, at the same time, availed themselves of much captured Soviet armour with which to continue their fight.

It would seem that even before they invented the Nokia cellphone, the Finns had proved themselves a force to be reckoned with. I do hope that we do not all come to regret Mr Brownlee’s declaration of cultural war against this potentially awesome opponent. The Finnish navy, travelling through the Baltic Sea and around the Horn of Africa, could reach our shores within a matter of weeks, and, without recourse to the Military Manoeuvres Act 1915, our own pitifully underfunded and under-resourced defence forces may find themselves woefully short of the preparation needed to meet the threat. Finland’s air force, the pronunciation of the name of which I am afraid, with my native tongue of English, is a feat that I find beyond me, includes more than 120 jet combat and trainer aircraft, including some 65 F/A-18s of the type flown also by the Royal Australian Air Force, which caused such a show at the Ōhākea air show in the weekend just gone. They are also used by the Canadians, the Swiss, and the United States Navy and Marine Corps.

It is noteworthy that with a population only 15 percent larger than our own, the Finns find this level of preparedness not only essential but also completely affordable. Perhaps they are doing something other than manufacturing cellphones that we are not, in order to pay for it all.

In the light of these recent developments, and the threat that Finland may now pose to our safety and security, New Zealand First is unable to continue with support for this bill. We would urge the House to reconsider its passage and, at the same time, give serious regard to the level of funding and preparedness we provide to our defence forces. New Zealand First is aware of the proud military tradition also provided by the Sikhs and the contribution they have made to the British Empire in two world wars. We would be terrified at the prospect of a Finnish secret agent being numbered among them. New Zealand First is gravely concerned about this evolving situation, and we must oppose this bill. Thank you.

• A party vote was called for on the question that the Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill be now read a third time.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Can I just remind members that when votes are taken, they are taken in silence. If they are not and it is otherwise, that can be seen as intimidation and can lead to a breach of privilege in the House.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) : Sat sri akaal. The media on multiple occasions have reported that charitable organisations end up paying large amounts of their donations to the companies or individuals who generate these donations. One must acknowledge that collecting donations for a cause is not an easy task and that there are costs involved in raising donations. However, of equal importance is the acknowledgment that the people who donate money have the right to know where, how much of, and for what worthy cause, their money has been used. The Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill seeks to address these areas.

The bill is not about regulated charitable organisations, as these are covered under the Charities Act. It is reasonably easy for anyone to undertake an audit or examination of the financial statement of a charity if the fund-raising and subsequent spending was undertaken by the charity itself. However, issues arise when the process of raising funds is handled by a third party on behalf of the charitable organisation. Activities of the third parties, such as how much donation is actually collected, and how much is then given to the charity, are not open to public scrutiny. This bill seeks to specifically address this issue. The bill requires that the third party undertaking donation collections should make a complete disclosure of their activities.

The bill is by no means a restriction on the way charities operate. The charities should be able to contract out their fund-raising operation and this certainly will attract cost. The focus of this bill is clear: we want transparency and disclosure in this area. I commend this bill to the House.

Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) : I am pleased to take a call on the Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill. I spoke very positively about it during the first reading, because it addresses a real concern that a number of us have heard about, and have seen examples of, relating to donations for charitable purposes where all of the money intended for the charitable purpose or organisation did not get there. It is also refreshing. If we consider the juxtaposition of these two bills—this one and the one before—this one is remarkable for the passion that the Hon Amy Adams, when she first introduced her member’s bill, brought to it, whereas the one preceding this, the Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill, which we have discussed, seemed to be going through the motions. As others have quite justifiably said, it seemed to be one of the worst ways of addressing what ought to have been addressed in an omnibus bill. Therefore, this is a good bill.

It comes at a time when many charities rely to a large extent on donations from a very giving New Zealand public. Currently, there are no rules. There are no rules about what needs to happen to make sure that the money collected actually gets to where it was assumed the money would go, so the potential for abuse in the current system is enormous. Indeed, abuse has occurred. This particular area has become a big business. In 2002 Consumer magazine conducted an inquiry into the Children At Risk Education Foundation—CARE—and found that 75c in every dollar of donations was going to the telemarketing company. I mean, that is enormous. It can only be described as a rort that such a small fraction of what was raised actually ended up with the particular charity, yet it was feelings for that particular charity that generated the donations in the first place.

The issue was again raised in the media as a result of Epilepsy New Zealand’s decision to cut ties with fund-raiser the Epilepsy Foundation. In the last 3 years, according to Epilepsy New Zealand, the Epilepsy Foundation gathered $2.82 million in donations on its behalf through telemarketing, and approximately $2.1 million of this went straight back to the telemarketers. I mean, that is a rort in anybody’s language. It is a business, it is unconscionable behaviour, and so the pleasure that this side of the House has, and we all have, in supporting this bill and its provisions is there.

The telethon on TV3 for the benefit of the KidsCan charitable trust was also in the spotlight because of claims that less than 20 percent of the amount raised was passed to disadvantaged children. So 80 percent there went to telemarketers. Television New Zealand’s show Dancing with the Stars was also caught up in controversy when just 60 percent of the money raised for charities by the contestants actually made it to the recipients.

What this bill does is address a very, very real problem. It is good to see this bill come back from the Commerce Committee. The select committee process is the next bit I want to address. It fundamentally changed the bill. Obviously, quite a lot of detailed thinking by officials and by the advisers to the select committee went on in that select committee. Where the original bill was about disclosing how much was retained, clearly, an appropriate mechanism had not been thought through as to how that could actually happen. The select committee in the proposals it has come up with in the bill’s amendments actually has addressed that. Perhaps it is not unusual that a member’s bill does not think through the nitty-gritty of how an idea or an intent is unpacked into legislation. The select committee in this case has done a great job in putting its mind to the task, and it has thought through how the bill’s purposes could be achieved.

The select committee has amended the bill to enact regulation-making powers relating to disclosure by those who raise funds. It will be regulations now that determine exactly how it is, and the bill sets the framework for that. When the regulations come out, they will direct how in a particular case the rules are to work out. So, essentially, what the select committee has done in the amendments is to design a system for the purpose of the bill to be met. I congratulate the select committee on doing that work, and on thinking through the purposes of the bill in that particular way.

But there are two other matters I want to refer to. One is that some matters are so important that they ought to be Government measures, and this is one of them. The last bill that went through here was also such a matter, and there are other areas of fair trading that are currently being looked at. One would have thought that these matters would be put together, and that the Government would take charge of the whole package of rules, regulations, and laws that needed to be amended, and the system that needed to be redesigned, and would bring them back together in a comprehensive kind of way. I think there is another member’s bill—it is before a select committee, where it has been parked—introduced for very, very similar reasons. So it could have happened in this particular case. Sometimes it is useful for Ministers to think that through, particularly Ministers with responsibilities in the area. That has not happened in this particular case. But, fortunately, this bill will go through the Committee stage, so we will have an opportunity to go through it, have a look at it, understand it, and make amendments as the Committee of the whole House. Interestingly enough, it was not commented on that the last bill did not have a Committee stage. That also kind of reflects the irony of the situation of the bill we discussed prior to this one.

Finally, I want to raise one other matter that is on my mind. I note that the provisions of the bill show the framework for the regulation-making powers, but as I read through them I just wondered what the sanctions were if somebody did not comply with those particular regulations. At some point, maybe in the Committee stage—or perhaps the next speaker or the member in charge of the bill—someone might just clarify for me as to what the process is by which non-compliance is dealt with, and what the sanctions are. Are they to be in the regulations? If so, should that not be in one of the amendments or the clauses? Is it something taken as read, or should there be a particular clause which we look at in the Committee stage, where the sanctions are discussed?

This side is very pleased to be supporting this bill. It is a genuine member’s bill from somebody who feels passionately about these kinds of things. They have, obviously, come before the Hon Amy Adams, since she has brought the bill here and given us the opportunity to discuss it. We all as members of Parliament have had this experience. Here we are, at a fairly advanced stage now, taking the bill through its processes. I think that what the select committee has done is a great job. I hope the final piece is addressed, and I am sure it will end up being a very good piece of legislation.

MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) : I find myself in the unusual position of being the member in whose name the Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill is being read, but of not having spoken on this bill at either the first reading, the deliberation by the Commerce Committee, or until slot 10 or so of the second reading. The reason for that is—

Hon Trevor Mallard: What a lazy member.

MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: He may well be right, but not in this case. In fact, the bill was introduced by the Hon Amy Adams, who is now in Cabinet and cannot continue with the bill, and I am very grateful to her for passing the bill on to me for its safe passage through the House. I also want to acknowledge and thank Louise Upston, my junior whip and friend, who because of my inability to be able to do so last members’ day, moved that the bill be read a second time.

I also want to acknowledge Dr Prasad’s very thoughtful comments on this bill, because I think he does articulate a widely shared view about the importance of this issue as it relates to members of the public, and that was clearly set out in the advice given to the committee by the Commerce Commission, which said that in its research it found widespread public support for greater transparency in the amount of money that was collected by those collecting on behalf of charities. It is worth stressing that the purpose of this bill is not to reduce that very strong charitable streak that is in all New Zealanders, but merely to give them more information with which to be able to make decisions about where that charitable effort could be put. As members know, I am the liaison person for the Arthritis New Zealand parliamentary support group, Parliamentary Friends for Arthritis, and I am also a member of the one that supports diabetes. Both of those organisations rely very heavily on public funding, public charity, for their financial well-being, and I am sure that nobody would want to see those organisations and others like them disadvantaged in any way.

But I was very aware of a recent article in a Sunday paper on the amount of money that is retained by these organisations. In one case involving annual giving or monthly giving, which is becoming quite the norm, a particular fund-raising group kept the full first year’s donations by members of the public for itself. It would be a full year before any 1c of that money is ending up in the charity’s bank balance. That may well be perfectly appropriate; I am not suggesting for a moment that there is a rort, which I think is the word that Dr Prasad used. I am not sure whether I would agree with that, but I do think that much greater transparency and informed decision-making is appropriate.

I just want to touch on another couple of issues about the use of the initial clause that was proposed to be amended. That was described as an inappropriate mechanism, and I think that is a little harsh on the member introducing the bill. Indeed, I am a little surprised that there has not been some concern by some members about the use of regulation, which is usually the response—

Hon David Parker: I’m yet to come.

MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Oh, very good. Well, we will hear a little bit about that, but I think that is a valid question to be asked about whether regulation should be used in this way. But that was carefully considered by the select committee, and it was felt on balance and in the context of the Fair Trading Act review, which is going on, to be the best way in order to deliver the policy intent of this bill. I would not call either of those two options an inappropriate mechanism, but the very important thing is that the Minister prior to passing those regulations consults very carefully with the sector before such regulations are passed.

Two other things were raised, including the issue of whether this should be a Government measure. There are two aspects in what I would say to that. One is that the Government has a very busy legislative programme—far more is required to go through to deliver its plan than hours are available. Members’ days can be used for things that could otherwise be used for Government legislation. But the other inference is that somehow members’ days are only for Opposition members, and I do not think that is appropriate, as a backbench Government member. Mrs Adams and others on this side of the House have come up with very good ideas for how legislation can be passed or improved, and I think it is entirely appropriate that Government backbench members also have this day to be able to advance their ideas.

The last thing I want to say, and I think it was a very good point raised by Dr Prasad, is on the issue of non-compliance. As the member in charge of this bill, although I cannot address that specific issue today, I will say that it has been something that I have been reflecting on and when we do return to examine the bill in more detail at the Committee stage, I would be very happy to answer any questions in respect of that and what the appropriate response is to ensure that compliance is encouraged first, and then what sanctions may be necessary for non-compliance. I thank the member for raising what I think is a very good point that I share. Other than that, I commend the bill.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) : I take a call on the Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill. I was on the Commerce Committee at the time that this bill was referred to it, after it had its first reading in the House. I think it is fair to say that the select committee members were very charitable in our dealings with the bill, because it turned out that the bill that came to the select committee was completely impractical and did not work. This is recognised in the commentary from the select committee, which notes: “We received submissions from some large and reputable charities who submitted against the bill.” That is shorthand for saying that some of New Zealand’s most reputable, longstanding charities panned the bill as being wrong, overreaching, and one that would not work. That is effectively what they said.

Michael Woodhouse: That’s not what they said.

Hon DAVID PARKER: They did say that. I was actually—

Michael Woodhouse: They generally endorsed it.

Hon DAVID PARKER: No, actually they did not. They came along and said: “Hey, look, this is silly.” They gave the example of where someone is employed to get a donor who becomes a repetitive donor donating an amount every week or every month to the charity. They said: “Well, how can you tell what percentage of the commission that might be paid to that person to help the charity in its efforts is attributable to donations over a period of time?”. They pointed out that it was just impractical. Indeed, the report from the select committee said: “We”—this is all of us on the committee—“concluded that the complexities involved could not be dealt with in primary legislation …”. That means that the purpose, which is an admirable purpose—to stop money being unduly taken or hived off for people who are ostensibly there for charitable purposes, but lining their own pockets—could not be dealt with in primary legislation. Not only that, but we found that a lot of the mischief that existed was already covered by other legislation, and that again is sort of averted to in the select committee report, which says that under the Fair Trading Act “provisions regarding unfair practices provide for prohibitions” on certain sorts of conduct. So, if you are acting in trade under the Fair Trading Act, and you are out there for financial reward, pocketing the money yourself but pretending that it is for a charity, that is a breach of the Fair Trading Act, and we should not be surprised by that. That part was already covered by the law.

We found out that, in the end, the only bit that really was not covered by the law, and that could be perhaps better dealt with, was that there are no positive obligations of disclosure upon people before they seek a donation. So, faced with a choice as to whether we just reported this bill back as being a useless attempt at a good purpose, we chose to take the charitable view, actually fixed the bill, changed it from that which arrived at the select committee, and did what Amy Adams had not been able to do in advance of the committee. The officials, who were struggling to try to help address the underlying issue, said: “Well, let’s come up with these regulations that could be made by the Governor-General about prescribing disclosure requirements for people who are seeking charitable donations.” This bill does not do that; it just creates some future right of a Government department to do it, so another layer of bureaucracy is being put upon the charitable sector, which I suspect will end up being disproportionate to the ill that is being claimed to be fixed.

Actually, I think the reason we went along with this at the select committee was that we found Amy Adams reasonable to deal with and we did not want to rub her nose in it. So we did not. We came up with this regulation-making power, which is pretty harmless. It does not really advance a lot, nothing will change tomorrow as a consequence of the passing of this legislation, but Amy Adams gets a member’s bill going through initially in her name, and now in the name of the member from Dunedin, who has taken it over to see it through to the end of its process. So we are voting in favour of the bill, but I thought that history should be put on record.

DENISE ROCHE (Green) : Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. It is my pleasure to rise on behalf of the Greens to support the Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill. Donations are the lifeblood of the charitable and not-for-profit sector, and many of New Zealand’s 23,000 or so registered charities, and a fair few of the ones that are denied registration because of the narrow definition of “charitable purpose” in the Charities Act, rely on the goodwill and philanthropy of ordinary New Zealanders digging into their pockets to keep them afloat. The Greens have welcomed this bill, because as funding rounds with local authorities and contracts with the Government get clawed back and become more difficult, more and more charities have moved to professional fund-raisers. These third-party fund-raisers undertake the appeals for the charity, either through collections or through telemarketing, and either charge a straight fee or, as is more prevalent, take a percentage of all the donations that are pledged. Like many in this House we have felt concerned about the lack of clarity over these arrangements. We have been concerned that good-natured, philanthropic New Zealanders did not know how much of their donations were being diverted to a private company when most donors give to charity thinking that the intention is for the charity to use their money for the purposes of the charity’s activities.

We, the Greens, are great believers in transparency in all things, and so of course we have supported this bill. However, we have been concerned about how this bill would develop, as originally it suggested that donors would get to know exactly how much of their donation was being diverted to a fund-raising company only if that company was retaining more than 50 percent of the donation that they pledged, and that the donor would know that a proportion was being diverted to the company only if the company was taking between 20 percent and 50 percent of the donations.

We note the report from the Commerce Committee, which heard the submissions on the bill, and its comment that there is some complexity involved in setting a threshold that would trigger that transparency, and we do welcome the bill’s move to shift the responsibility of the detail around a bit, either through amendments in this House as the bill proceeds through to the Committee of the whole House, or through the Minister. These complexities include the fact that some large charitable organisations do spend more money on fund-raising initially as they sign people up on automatic payment forms, and that is recouped later on as time progresses, and I note that several members have already mentioned this. I know that this happens with Greenpeace New Zealand. It does not use third-party fund-raisers, and, as a good, prudent safeguard, it actually keeps an eye on the wages it spends on fund-raisers compared with the amount of funds it is fund-raising.

To my mind it is a great shame that we have to have a bill like this at all, and that good and worthy charitable organisations are forced to rely on the services of some potentially unscrupulous fund-raisers to make ends meet. We recognise that in times of recession, the generosity of New Zealanders is under pressure and that not-for-profit organisations are competing for the charity dollar. So it is doubly disturbing that unscrupulous fund-raising companies do exist. That pressure also forces good, worthy charities into the arms of the Devil. As the charity dollar reduces and Government funding dries up, more and more not-for-profit organisations face the prospect of becoming addicted to funding that is generated through the addiction of others. They start to rely on grants from those pub charities or, if they are lucky—and it is a lottery, excuse the pun—from Skycity. I just note here that Skycity casinos allocate only 2.5 percent of their profits from gambling to community grants, compared with pub pokie machines, which are required by law to allocate 37.1 percent for community purposes—despite this and the fact that the Prime Minister said yesterday during question time that pokies in casinos are three times more addictive that the ones in pubs.

The trouble with the unscrupulous fund-raising companies is that they bring all fund-raising into disrepute, and that is why we welcome this bill. We also note that there is more work to be done on the thresholds and around regulation, and we agree with the honourable member Rajen Prasad that there is more conversation to be had. In the meantime, however, the Green Party will be supporting this bill. Nō reira, tēnā koutou katoa.

JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) : Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I am very pleased to stand in support of the Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill.

New Zealanders like to be generous, without a doubt, and it is very important that we place reasonable protections around that generosity if we want to see it continue. We have a giving spirit in many regards. Seventy-seven percent of New Zealanders are planning to make a donation to charity in the next year, a recent survey has found. Many of our community organisations, as the previous speaker, Denise Roche, has mentioned, rely upon the generous donations of New Zealanders. What we find time and again are stories that come through the media of people who have been scammed or ripped off in the name of some good charity or good event.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Are you talking about ACC?

JONATHAN YOUNG: That is coming up. So it is very important that we do have in place the measures to protect New Zealanders.

We are in fact the second most charitable nation in the Asia-Pacific region. According to MasterCard’s survey of about 6,000 people across 14 countries, the only nation that was more charitable than us was Indonesia. We came second, and we even beat the Australians. We do have 25,500 organisations registered with the Charities Commission, and that organisation exists obviously to bring credibility, accountability, and transparency to our charitable sector. This is exactly what this bill is seeking to do.

It must be said that the Commerce Committee, which viewed this bill, did receive varied comments from different submitters, and some did say that they felt they would be adversely caught. So that was a reason why there was a move to put regulation-making powers in this bill—to create regulations that will work for all charities, rather than put it into primary legislation.

As stated before, some reputable charities in our communities—people who do great work for our communities, whether they be rescue helicopter trusts or the like—do rely upon full-time professional fund-raising organisations. Some of those organisations rely upon them only because the work they do, on many counts by volunteers, is totally immersed in doing the work of the charity, so they do not have the capacity to be fund-raising as well. It is important that the public have faith that their donations to charities are going to the charities. I do not think anybody here would be happy or comfortable to know that 100 percent of what they have donated is not going to the charity they thought it was going to.

That aside, we realise some of the complexities and some of the pragmatic aspects around fund-raising, but I think that when a fund-raising organisation is faced with the necessity to disclose what portion of the donation it receives is for its own administrative or salary costs, then it is actually going to be a challenge that will cause the reputability and the quality of the charity to once again stand up in its own right. So people will think that although 20 percent might be going towards the administration, the cause it is raising funds for is worth that, whether it be a rescue helicopter trust or the like. I think New Zealanders see the real relevance and necessity for those sorts of organisations, and realise that there has to be that fund-raising capacity behind them in order to maintain their costs and keep flying.

This bill is going to be, I think, a bit of a sorting ground. I think that through this legislation there will be some fund-raising organisations that may not survive, but we are also aware that there are many organisations out there that ought not to be there in terms of the amount that they do take from the charities that they seek to raise funds for.

I think, once again, that New Zealanders are very generous, and we must protect that generosity. We do not want to see a cynicism rise in the community, but we do want to see New Zealanders continue to contribute and continue to see the vast majority of what they donate get to the charities that they give to. Thank you very much.

• Bill read a second time.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) : I move, That the Sustainable Biofuel Bill be now read a second time. I took over the energy portfolio from Jeanette Fitzsimons, on her departure, and thus her Sustainable Biofuel Bill. That bill is now in my name. The bill was referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee—following its first reading in July 2009—which referred it to a subcommittee of three members: one National, one Labour, and one Green. Officials from the Ministry of Economic Development produced a report for our small and happy band, and then in a fit of contrition hastened back to the subcommittee with a request that large parts of their work be deleted, on grounds of confidentiality. Weird as that was, the majority in the subcommittee assented.

The Ministry of Economic Development’s verbal advice was threefold. First, the New Zealand proportion of biofuel consumption to total petrol and diesel was tiny. At 0.6 billion litres it was 0.5 percent of the total. Most was locally produced. Only Gull imported. This compared with 5 percent in the European Union and about 8 percent in the United States. In the case of the EU, when its production was low it had set mandatory targets for increasing renewable energy in the form of biofuels—5.25 percent in 2010 and 10 percent in 2020. This resulted in the EU importing, in haste, from many sources: South America, North America, and South-east Asia. That explained the EU’s interest, back in 2007, in developing importation standards.

Secondly, according to officials, most New Zealand companies voluntarily provided information on their fuel imports to the Ministry of Economic Development. Gull, for example, did so in respect of biofuels. Thirdly, developing legislation to introduce standards specifically for biofuels would be complex and time-consuming, usually taking about a year. Although Europe did it, that was because of the reasons I advanced earlier. In the New Zealand case, for those same reasons, it would not really be worth it.

Frankly, the Green Party did not find those reasons to be sufficient for not proceeding with the bill. In the subcommittee group, I explored with officials two things: first, whether the EU directive was initiated in the context of an anticipated increase in biofuel imports rather than as a reaction; and, second, what degree of confidence the public might have in a continued New Zealand voluntary regime. The answers of officials appeared to please, at least, the subcommittee chair. On my request the subcommittee explored the extent to which the New Zealand public might be assured that biofuel imports would be beyond reproach. I floated an additional possible requirement—that the Minister be required to report to the House annually, with the sign-off that no biofuel imports from an unsustainable source had been imported into New Zealand. This appeared to displease the subcommittee chair.

Not surprisingly, the Green Party maintained a different view from that of the Government on sustainable biofuels. The preference of the Government and of the biofuel industry was for a system of voluntary reporting. There was also the confidence of the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority that such a reporting system was meeting its purpose. In the Green view these considerations do not, in themselves, constitute a sufficient reason for New Zealand to confine itself to such a modest framework for biofuel production and importation.

Although biofuel use in New Zealand remains low, at 0.1 percent, it will, we think, be prudent to establish time-specified quantitative targets for increased imports and sustainability criteria under legislation. The EU standards had been introduced at a time when its imports were low. It would, we thought, be prudent to establish time-specified targets in anticipation of greater targeted levels. As part of New Zealand’s share in the global responsibility to combat climate change and preserve global fuel food integrity, we should follow suit, rather than wait and see whether the market for imports here might first increase. Such a laissez-faire approach to global climate change and sustainability would prove to be inadequate to the challenge that the international community confronts.

Finally, New Zealand’s international obligations under its free-trade agreements did not in themselves preclude the merit or the feasibility of introducing sustainable criteria for biofuel imports.

This bill, I suspect, will be voted down, but let the last word go to Jeanette Fitzsimons: “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 Green Party will, of course, be voting for this bill.

NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central) : It is very interesting to listen to Kennedy Graham talking about the Sustainable Biofuel Bill, because I was part of the small subcommittee of the Local Government and Environment Committee. In fact, I did chair it. I reflect on the excitement that people concerned about the environment had in terms of the idea of biofuels. It seemed to answer the twin problems of long-term sourcing of fossil fuels and a way to cut carbon emissions, in the face of climate change. As someone who is particularly interested in waste minimisation and recycling, there were also lots of exciting ideas of new technologies to turn waste products into energy sources.

Many countries embraced the development of biofuels. Some introduced subsidies to encourage the growth of biofuel feedstock, and some even passed laws to mandate the supply of biofuels. In fact, in 2008 Labour passed the Biofuel Bill, which placed an obligation on oil companies to sell biofuels as a set percentage of their sales. Biofuels can be made from a variety of biofuel feedstocks, including grain, palm oil, oil crops such as rape, and woody growth. Biofuels can also be made from some waste products, and the example that we see mostly in New Zealand is used cooking oil, or food waste, such as tallow.

There have been ongoing experiments in New Zealand concerning the growth of algae and very fast-growing feedstock in nutrient-rich environments. Those experiments have been happening in the Blenheim sewage plant, and although that work looks promising and they are working in partnership with some people in the US, it has not been commercialised yet. And that is one of the problems. Yes, we can use waste to make biofuels, but to get any economy of scale, specific crops need to be grown.

As the world learnt more about biofuels, we learnt that not all biofuels were good for the environment. We learnt that the cultivation and the growth of some crops used for biofuels, when we analysed their life cycles, were enormously hungry on fossil fuels during the growing process, so they did very little to lower carbon emissions.

Then we discovered that by subsidising the growing of crops, many farmers changed from growing food crops to growing fuel crops. The classic example there was the growing of grains in the US. The prices that grain farmers could get with a subsidy forced up the cost of food, and many low-income people could not afford to buy the foods that they had always relied on. In fact, the cost of tortillas in Mexico went up because of the US Government’s subsidy for biofuels.

Finally, we discovered that when encouraged by a Government subsidy, there was a loss of important biodiversity, the clear-felling of indigenous forests, and the destruction of valuable ecosystems to grow biofuel stocks, particularly palm oil. So the excitement about biofuels was tempered by these three major problems and, finally, the fact that we needed too much fossil fuel to grow some crops.

So the first problem was that we needed too much fossil fuel to grow the crops. The second problem was that growing biofuel stocks deprived people of food, which they could not afford. The third problem was that in some cases we were destroying the very environment we were looking to save by clearing land for growing feedstock, so much so that environmentalists became increasingly disappointed and worried about the consequences of increased biofuel production. They felt that subsidising biofuels, or placing an obligation on the sale of biofuels, such as Labour’s bill was doing in this country, would actually cause environmental damage.

In New Zealand, Jan Wright, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, was so concerned that she did an inquiry and wrote a report saying: “The Biofuel Bill currently before Parliament should not proceed in its current form. International concern about the sustainability of biofuels and their true environmental and economic impacts have heated up considerably in recent months—which signals a need for caution.” Jeanette Fitzsimons, the co-leader of the Greens at the time, introduced this bill. This bill was designed to ensure that biofuels imported into New Zealand to meet the obligation would need to pass a sustainability test, so that we would not be buying biofuels that could be doing environmental and social damage.

In 2009 the National Government repealed the biofuel legislation and the obligation for all companies to sell a percentage of biofuels. We repealed the Act in the face of the sustainability issues, and because we believed it would force up the price of fuel for consumers. Existing biofuel production continued, but it was from local feedstock and mostly waste products such as used cooking oil and tallow.

When the Sustainable Biofuel Bill came to the Local Government and Environment Committee and we heard the submissions on the bill, we concluded that the bill was unnecessary and impractical for several reasons. First, there was no available international standard by which to judge whether or not biofuels were sustainable. Secondly, as National had repealed the biofuels obligation there was no pressure to import unsustainable biofuels.

The amount of biofuels being used in the country was low and mostly made in New Zealand. All New Zealand - made biofuels were made from waste products—as I have said, from used cooking oil, tallow, whey, or non-edible seeds such as rape. Although there were small amounts of Brazilian sugar cane being imported, the sugar cane was sustainable.

The biofuel industry had a voluntary reporting scheme. Its argument was that people who were buying biofuels were doing it to show their environmental credentials and that the use of unsustainable biofuels would threaten that, so companies were very careful as to the sources of their biofuel, and, finally, we could already make regulations to cover any problems.

Sections 35 and 36 of the Energy (Fuels, Levies, and References) Act 1989 included regulation-making and information-gathering powers regarding producers and suppliers of engine fuel. These sections could be modified to discourage unsustainable biofuels in New Zealand if it was necessary in the future. Finally, we could not find any evidence of immediate concern of unsustainable biofuels being sold in New Zealand. We were pleased that the biofuel industry appeared to appreciate the importance of environmental sustainability, and that was part of people’s motivation for using biofuels. So we decided to recommend that the bill did not proceed.

I, like Jeanette Fitzsimons and so many others, was hopeful that biofuels could provide an answer to sourcing fossil fuels and cutting carbon emissions, but it seems that using sustainable biofuels is a bigger challenge than we first thought. I am still hopeful that biofuels made from waste products will become much more viable and useful in the future. I thank Jeanette Fitzsimons for this bill. It was an attempt to mitigate the environmental hazards of biofuels when we thought we would have an obligation in New Zealand, but as time has passed it has proved to be unnecessary. Thank you.

MOANA MACKEY (Labour) : What an extraordinarily bad speech from a member who claims to be environmentally friendly. What an extraordinary rewriting of history. I do not know whether Nicky Wagner actually believes what she just said, or whether she just decided to leave out quite a few key facts. And what an extraordinary contradiction in terms from a member who started off by saying that she did not support Labour’s Biofuel Bill because it did not have any sustainable standards in it, and that Jan Wright criticised the bill because of that. She left out the fact that, of course, that piece of work from Jan Wright was done before Labour made amendments to the bill to put sustainable standards in it. It was Labour’s bill that was amended to do that, alongside Jeanette Fitzsimons and Metiria Turei, who were on the Local Government and Environment Committee, which I chaired. But now she is saying: “Well, actually we do not need any sustainable standards in the legislation, because there are no biofuels in New Zealand.”

We on this side of the House actually think that it is a problem that the National Government has killed biofuel production in this country. We do not think it is good enough to say that we do not need environmental standards because they are so little and they will just self-regulate. When we see what happened with Cadbury’s and the use of palm oil, it was actually public protest that forced it to back down. It should not have to come to public protest to get good legislation in place to protect the environment and to support an industry that is going to be very important for the future of New Zealand, especially in terms of security of supply.

Labour will very proudly be supporting this piece of legislation, the Sustainable Biofuel Bill, which the National Government is going to vote down today. I want to take the member who has just resumed her seat back to what actually happened at the time. Labour put in place a biofuels obligation. For a long time the industry had been saying it was going to do it, and it did not happen. What we said was that over time, from 2008 to 2012, we would move from 0.5 percent of petrol and diesel sold on an energy equivalent basis up to 2.5 percent in 2012, and the industry would have to make sure that by 2012, 2.5 percent of the fuel it was selling was biofuel. We did this in a way that was very flexible. The industry could choose to do it through the petrol pumps, as Gull did and as Mobil then acted to do, or it could sell product directly to customers—for example, 100 percent bio-diesel—and meet its obligations that way. That was up to the industry.

It did two very important things. Firstly, it provided some certainty for the fledgling biofuel industry in New Zealand that there was going to be a market for its products. Based on that, the biofuel industry was able to invest in its companies because it knew the market would be there. That was a certainty that it had not had before. And do you know what was so great about it? It cost the Government nothing. No expensive subsidies—nothing. It was merely an obligation that provided certainty to a sector that needed that certainty, and the biofuels sector welcomed it.

When we chose what that level of obligation was going to be we were very cognisant of the amount of biofuel that was currently available in New Zealand. We did not want to force the oil companies to have to go offshore and bring in unsustainable biofuels. We knew that there was more than enough biofuel already in production in New Zealand, and we planned for production once the industry had that certainty to meet that 2.5 percent obligation. It could do it from sustainable sources in New Zealand.

The bill went to the Local Government and Environment Committee, and the Green Party quite rightly raised that we should do some work on sustainability standards for the legislation. I was chairing the Local Government and Environment Committee at that time, and I can tell you that we worked incredibly hard, both in the committee and outside the committee, with the Minister of Energy and Resources at the time, David Parker, to come up with some sustainability standards that could go into the core legislation. The guts of it would be done in regulation, but what the submitters told us was that there was enough of a steer in primary legislation to make it clear what was going to be acceptable and what was not going to be acceptable, once those regulations were put in place. The principles of those sustainability standards were around the fact that they actually had to produce less greenhouse gas than fossil fuel. There is no point saying: “You can have a biofuel, and that’s great because it’s a biofuel.”, when in fact it emits more greenhouse gas emissions than petrol does, so we put in some clear sustainability standards around that. The second point was that we did not want it to compete with food production. We did not want, when food should have been going towards feeding people, those farmers suddenly realising they could make more money out of biofuels because of the massive subsidies in some countries overseas. So we made it clear, in terms of downstream effects as well, that we did not want to see food production impacted by this. The third one was around biodiversity and ensuring that we were not using biofuels that have actually contributed to a decrease in biodiversity around the world.

Do not underestimate how much work went into getting those standards to a point where the Green Party was comfortable with them, the Labour Party was comfortable with them, and the select committee was comfortable with them. A lot of work went into that legislation. I think it was actually very, very good legislation, and I really want to commend the officials who worked on that piece of legislation, because they were absolutely fantastic. They were enthusiastic about drafting these sustainability standards. They said to us: “This is doable. We can have the regulations for these in place by the middle of 2009. That is not a problem. You’ve given us enough of a steer that we know it can be done.” We knew then that all the biofuels that would be used in New Zealand would meet those sustainability standards. As I said before, there is more than enough feedstock in New Zealand to meet that obligation—be it ethanol, as a waste product of the dairy industry, or tallow, again from the agricultural industry—more than enough that was going on in New Zealand.

One of the oil companies, Mobil Oil, actually moved before the legislation came into place, because it saw that the writing was on the wall. It saw that there was a competitive advantage for it to get in there early and be able to say: “You know what? We got in there and we’re grabbing this with both hands. We’re not going to complain about it.” Mobil Oil started introducing ethanol into its petrol blends at its service stations. Some of the other oil companies, as I said before, indicated that they would probably just sell direct product to bulk customers, in order to meet their obligation that way. And it cost the taxpayers of New Zealand nothing—nothing. It was a simple way of getting some kind of scale in an industry that was fledgling, that was struggling to get on its feet, and that was very, very important to the future of New Zealand.

Then we had a change of Government, and what happened was that one of the very first pieces of legislation it repealed was the Biofuel Bill. What did National replace it with? At a time when there was no money, when it was slashing and burning and crying about how poor we were, it put in place a $36 million subsidy fund. So in place of what Labour was doing, which was free to the taxpayers of New Zealand, National put in a $36 million subsidy fund, which has been an absolute and utter failure—a total failure. It is not what the sector wanted. There has been no certainty for the sector. Because it is a year-by-year appropriation, the sector is not actually able to plan, because it does not know how much it is going to get. And, lo and behold, here we are with Minister Phil Heatley saying that the subsidy scheme is going. Basically, it is going because of low uptake. Well, the low uptake has been because it was a shambles from start to finish. It was not what the industry wanted. It is extraordinary that something was happening for free, then National wanted to put in subsidies in order to make it happen, and it did not work. So National repealed the legislation, and what was its reason for repealing that bill? Because there are not sustainability standard regulations yet. Well, there are not any at all now, and, by the way, there is also very little biofuel being produced in New Zealand, because of this Government’s complete inability to come up with any kind of coherent plan to ensure that the sector has the certainty that it needs to invest.

When Gerry Brownlee repealed that piece of legislation, a $10 million biofuel plant was mothballed on the basis of that decision, because it had thought the Government was going to provide it with that certainty. The plant had made investment decisions based on that, and Gerry Brownlee and National pulled the rug out from underneath it. That $10 million plant was mothballed, that gentleman lost money, and now we find ourselves in a situation where, finally, National has just admitted that it is not going to do anything about biofuels and that the subsidy scheme is going. For what there is, the National Party does not really care whether it is sustainable or not, so why do we need sustainability standards? But to stand up and try to argue that you are getting rid of a piece of legislation on environmental grounds is just so galling that it beggars belief—so galling that it beggars belief.

This is a good piece of legislation. When we have a Labour Government at the next election we will be acting on biofuels. We want them to be sustainable. We will be putting in place policy that actually supports the industry and does not undermine it and pay lip-service to it. I look forward to seeing this piece of legislation once again when we have a Labour Government, which takes its environmental commitments seriously and which takes its energy and security of supply commitments seriously. We will see these sustainable biofuel principles back.

It is a shame the bill is going to be voted down today, but can I please just implore National members: do not stand up and try to tell us that it is on environmental grounds that you are opposing this piece of legislation, because, frankly, it is painful to listen to. It is just embarrassing from members who claim to have environmental credibility, who claim to be Bluegreens. Please just be honest. This is actually about the fact that National does not think that the biofuel industry has any future in New Zealand and therefore is not prepared to support it.

MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore) : I rise to talk about the Sustainable Biofuel Bill and to debate it. Pain and embarrassment should be no strangers to my colleagues across the House; you should be well used to it by now. In doing some research on this bill I had a look at the history of it. Others have gone into it, in many ways. Labour passed the Biofuel Bill in 2008. We repealed it because it would bring uncertainty to consumers and push up the price of fuel. As members on the other side of the House do not like us bringing up environmental arguments, maybe they would look at the environmental arguments brought up by Dr Jan Wright in July 2010. The independent Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment recommended that the bill should not proceed, because it was unworkable. That was fair. I read through the bill today. I agree with her entirely, and I think that some of the concerns that she raised about the unworkability of the bill will remain the reason why it will not get much further than this.

It has had a very patchy history and has been passed through many hands, the latest of which is in the name of its sponsor, Dr Kennedy Graham. He pointed out that there is a very low uptake of biofuels at the moment, 0.1 percent, and that single-minded goals do not always succeed. This bill will not succeed, because it just does not cut the mustard. It does not work, and it is not useful.

National is a party that does promote sustainable, clean technologies like biofuels and electric cars. I have driven one myself, for example—once we took off the road-user charges, that is. Our commitment to biofuel is part of a wider commitment, because we have a broader vision than the very narrow confines of the people who speak in favour of this bill. Biofuels must be sustainable through the existing provisions, but we do believe that this bill is unworkable and unnecessary, which is why we are speaking against it.

I think that using an unsustainable biofuel would ultimately harm a company’s environmental reputation. It is available in this country, it can be used, and it will be used, but it is not exactly something that needs to be done in the form that this bill provides. It is a flawed piece of legislation, which is why it has been batted about, backwards and forwards, for so long. There is not a whole lot more to be said, really. I take you back to what Dr Jan Wright said in her very well-researched piece of work that came through to the Local Government and Environment Committee, which apparently the people across the way were part of at that time, and remind them that biofuels are our oldest fuels. Since we have been burning wood and lighting tallow candles we have been using biofuels. Henry Ford’s original cars ran on ethanol made out of plants. These are not new and unusual things, but what must occur, if it is to be put through in a sustainable way, is a far better piece of well-thought legislation than this. It is poorly crafted and will not get us anywhere in a hurry.

I look at the dominance of petroleum and I do not see that anything much in this bill is going to encourage anybody to sway away from that. So, again, as I speak to this, the Sustainable Biofuel Bill, I hear what the others on the other side of the House have said, and I remain, as usual and often, unconvinced by their uncompelling arguments. Thank you.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) : The commitment of National to the environment—I remember in my very first days in this House, in 2008, two of the first bills that the new National Government took on were to remove the biofuel obligation and to stop the renewable energy preference obligation. Two major issues of environmental policy, and the first thing National did was to get rid of them. We see National members stand up and hear them taking credit for things like renewable energy generation, when they opposed our target of 90 percent renewables, when we were in office. That was opposed by the National Party, and the blue-green rinse over there is trying to make a claim that they have got environmental credentials. That is ridiculous.

My colleague Moana Mackey traversed the history of this matter, and I think it is important, when we look at the report back from the Local Government and Environment Committee on the Sustainable Biofuel Bill, to note that it also decided to cover some of the history of biofuels in New Zealand. There is an interesting sentence on page 2 of the report: “[The committee was] advised that the likelihood of unsustainable biofuels being imported into New Zealand in the near future appears low, for three main reasons.” The first of these reasons is “there is a lack of demand for biofuels in the mainstream retail market and they are mainly used in niche markets, such as eco-tourism.”

Well, there is a reason for that. It is because the Government dismantled the obligation that would have helped establish the biofuels industry, and put in place a subsidy scheme that has been wholly unsuccessful—and, as Ms Mackey told us, it is now going to end—in actually helping to establish biofuels in this country. I want to go through some numbers in that regard. In the first year of operation of this grand $36 million scheme, around $300,000 was spent on the biofuels scheme. This increased enormously in the next year—up to $804,000—and up until the end of last year had got to another $417,000. So that is around about $1.5 million from the $36 million scheme.

In some reports I have been reading about this, great claim is made of the fact that at any one moment there have been up to six companies involved in the biofuels industry, sometimes three, and sometimes one. That is what the National Government has done to the biofuel industry in New Zealand—reduced it at various points in the last 3 years to one company being able to actually take up this scheme. The National Government has effectively destroyed the biofuels industry in New Zealand, and for members of National to stand up in this House today and say they are voting this bill down because of sustainability reasons is frankly ridiculous.

This bill is a very good bill, and added to the work that had been done in the previous Labour Government by David Parker and Jeanette Fitzsimons and others, we were moving to a position where biofuels could play a significant role in our fuel market. Yes, they should be sustainable biofuels. As Moana Mackey has said, there is plenty of evidence that domestic sources were going to be able to provide this. We do need sensible regulation around sustainable biofuels, as Moana Mackey said. There is no point in having a greater carbon impact than fossil fuels. Why would we make the conversion? But if we can make the conversion, if we can use domestic fuel sources, we should be doing that.

It is bizarre to be in this House tonight and hear the National members say that they are voting down this bill on the basis of environmental or sustainability reasons. It makes absolutely no sense, because the end result of National voting this bill down tonight and having repealed the biofuel obligation in its first few days means there are now no sustainability standards whatsoever for biofuels in New Zealand, and a dwindling biofuels industry. It simply makes no sense. It does not fit with the image and the brand that New Zealand wants to promote internationally for there to be a clean, green New Zealand that is at the cutting edge of new technologies.

The opportunity was there to help develop the sector. The goals were relatively modest, actually: to get ourselves to the point, after 5 years, that we would have a 2.5 percentage of biofuels within our fuels. That was actually a modest goal, but it was based on the fact that there was an industry wanting to get in behind that, wanting to do things to promote more sustainable fuels in New Zealand, wanting to decrease carbon emissions, and businesses that would invest. Then this National Government comes in, takes away that, puts in place a scheme that has been an unmitigated disaster, has brought no new players into the market, and has in fact systematically reduced those who were in the market, and now it is going to ditch the scheme and we will be left with a fairly much unregulated situation and no sustainability standards whatsoever.

The Green Party is to be congratulated on having brought this bill to the House. It was to build on some excellent work that had been done by the previous Labour Government to give us a more sustainable biofuels industry in New Zealand. I join with my colleague Moana Mackey in saying that a future Labour-led Government will encourage biofuels. There is a great deal of potential in sustainable biofuels from domestic sources in New Zealand. We should be exploiting that. But rather, we have a National Government that seems determined to destroy a sustainable biofuel industry with a pathetic grants scheme that is no longer going to exist and no real commitment to proper environmental standards, despite what Ms Wagner might have said.

RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First) : I rise to speak on the Sustainable Biofuel Bill on behalf of New Zealand First. New Zealand First opposes this bill, not because we are anti the environment, and not, in fact, because we disagree with the stated intention of the bill, but simply because we wish to illustrate the fact that the concept behind the bill is a simple nullity. New Zealand First does believe, and we do agree, that if we are going to use biofuels at all in New Zealand, then of course they should be sustainable. We do not, however, accept that this can be a possibility, especially if these biofuels are going to be imported.

The reasons that we hold the concept of biofuels being unsustainable are multifold. Essentially it comes down to the fact that any biofuels that we use, which we burn in place of fossil fuels, contain carbon and there are no free lunches in carbon-oxygen chemistry. Whether the source of carbon is a fossil fuel or whether it is a biofuel, in order to obtain an equivalent amount of energy in terms of, say, miles per gallon or kilowatts achieved through a generator, we need to break a certain number of carbon-oxygen bonds and remake new ones. If we are going to use a fuel that contains long-chain hydrocarbons, such as coal or heavy oil, then we will use proportionately a smaller amount of this particular material, as opposed to a biofuel that is generally lighter weight, say ethanol or methanol, but we will use more of it. In environmental terms, whether one accepts the concept of a carbon footprint and greenhouse gases or not, we cannot get away from the reality that in order to obtain a certain amount of energy we need to burn a certain amount of carbon, and the source of that carbon is largely irrelevant.

If we are going to import biofuels of any sort, be it palm oil, or ethanol that somebody else has made, obviously we have to put that fuel on a ship, and that ship has to be made out of steel, and the steel has to be made out of iron ore, which has to be mined somewhere and then refined. Well, the energy that goes into producing the steel to make that ship has to be taken into the equation. Also, we have to take into account the fact that that ship is going to run on marine diesel, and these things all have to be included. So, even if you look at a source that you can say comes from overseas and the fuel itself is being manufactured in a sustainable manner, we need to look at the entire big picture, and that big picture tells us that there is no way that we can take what should be ostensibly a low environmental impact fuel from overseas and import it to New Zealand without taking the extra energy that is required and the transportation into the equation. As I say, there are no free lunches in carbon-oxygen chemistry.

We agree with a lot of what the National Party says, but probably not for the same reasons. We do not oppose the concept of sustainable energy. We support the idea of a lower pollution footprint, certainly, for humanity. How this is best achieved, I think, can be determined by where we direct our energies. New Zealand First believes that biofuels are a nice idea, as some members on the Government side have said, but are probably not achievable. What I think we need to do is to look towards something that has a greater future, in terms of being an alternative to oil as a feedstock for energy for the Western World. There is a reality that change comes about in terms of human activity and industry quite often for reasons other than economic ones that are given at certain times. The Stone Age, for example, did not come to an end because we ran out of stone, and the steam age did not come to an end because we ran out of steam. The oil age will not come to an end because we have run out of oil. There is plenty of oil. It exists in different forms. There are economic arguments as to whether certain types of oil are economically extractable or not; as the world price of oil moves upwards we tend to find that alternative sources of that oil become more economic to recover. As I say, if we are going to use biofuels at all, yes, certainly we agree they should be sustainable, but this bill will focus on the use of biofuels as an alternative to putting energies into finding an alternative to oil itself, which biofuels do not do. There is one source of energy that is capable of replacing oil as a feedstock for humanity’s energy requirements, and that is hydrogen. Hydrogen, at the moment, is a long way off still, because we have to have the extraction technologies perfected, and we have to have storage and transportation perfected. But once those technologies are perfected, hydrogen will stand out as a possible replacement for oil.

The member on the Labour side mentioned that there are some industrial wastes that we currently produce in New Zealand that can be used to produce biofuels—and that is true. But these wastes are already being used for other purposes. Tallow, for example, is a valuable product that already has a market. Ethanol that is produced from whey by Fonterra is already being used. It is the source for vodka and for ready-to-drinks. It is being sold already; it is a useful product. When we look at the proportion of energy that can be extracted from, say, a source like ethanol, Fonterra, just for example, produces about a million litres of ethanol a month, whereas New Zealand car drivers and truck drivers use diesel and petrol at a rate of 10 million litres a day. The simple mathematical comparison between what we can produce in ethanol terms from whey, and what we need to consume in terms of petrol and diesel, means that using a source such as whey to produce ethanol is, at best, an exercise in tokenism. We feel that concentrating efforts on producing biofuels in this manner removes our focus and our energies away from what should be the long-term alternative source, which, in our view, is hydrogen. For those reasons, we are opposed to the passage of this bill. We support the concept behind it, but it is distracting from what needs to be the real agenda. Thank you.

GARETH HUGHES (Green) : Kia ora. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I rise to support this important bill, the Sustainable Biofuel Bill, in the House, which is raising this important issue. I would like to acknowledge the drafter of the bill, Jeanette Fitzsimons, and my colleague Dr Kennedy Graham, who has progressed it through the select committee consideration. It is disappointing that we are not seeing this bill proceed through the House. I challenge some of the older members to see where we have actually seen this House think ahead, act proactively, and legislate in advance of a problem.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I think we’re all older than you, mate.

GARETH HUGHES: So often we have seen, under successive Governments, Mr Cosgrove, that legislation responds to problems that we have seen in our community. It is reacting to problems. Here was a classic opportunity for this Parliament to think proactively and to set sustainable standards before we had a problem. What we know now is that we are going to wait until the Government uses its regulation powers after there is a problem. So it is disappointing we are not doing that.

This bill would have set sustainable standards for biofuels and futureproofed our legislation, it would have given industry a leg to stand on, and it would have given industry what it craves most, which is certainty around the standards. There is, of course, a serious issue of the sustainability of biofuels globally. We are seeing the last of the tropical rainforests in South-east Asia cut down for palm oil, in part for biofuels. Of course, we are importing a great percentage of it—in fact, the world’s largest percentage of palm kernel expeller—for our massive dairy expansion as well. We are seeing even jatropha oil—marketed as a wonder biofuel, not competing with food product, and used by Air New Zealand—in fact, provoke conflict in Kenya. What we are seeing there is land that otherwise would be used for food production used for jatropha. It highlights the most important issue we see with biofuels globally, which is when there is a competition between the fuel tanks of the rich world and the bellies of the poor world, it is the fuel tanks of the rich world that win out in that conflict. We acknowledge that there is a serious issue globally, and we think we will see these issues in the future in New Zealand, if we actually see some more biofuel used in New Zealand.

Like Labour, we lament the low amount of biofuels we are seeing in New Zealand. This is not a reflection of biofuels; it is a reflection of the National Government’s policies, its focus, and its drive, which is not prioritising biofuels at all. In fact, it is promoting drilling, mining, and digging up the lignite in Southland to convert to diesel. These are the National Government’s answers to the big issues.

This bill was needed. Essentially, it set three standards for sustainability. It would have asked the Minister through Order in Council to set a sustainability standard. Three principles are enumerated in the bill. Principle 1, “Less greenhouse”, states: “sustainable biofuels emit significantly less greenhouse gas over their life cycle …”. Principle 2, “Food production”, states: “sustainable biofuels do not compete with food production and are not grown on land of high value for food production.” Thirdly and lastly, principle 3, “Biodiversity and land with high conservation value”, states: “the production of sustainable biofuels does not reduce indigenous biodiversity or adversely affect land with high conservation value.” So there is one definition of sustainable fuels and three principles to guide it. What we would have seen is some proactive, smart legislation coming out of this House, but instead in a retrograde step we are seeing the National Government just voting against it, which is highly disappointing and is going to see a problem in the future that we could have remedied in 2012.

The bill would also reinstate the legal framework for selling biofuels in New Zealand that did not reach the World Trade Organization obligations. It would not distinguish between imported and locally produced biofuels, but would require both to meet a sustainability standard. We would not be discriminating against foreign-imported biofuels; we just want a sustainability discrimination standard.

We would like to thank the submitters who went to the Local Government and Environment Committee, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, and the officials at the select committee. The select committee found four things in its report, which I would like to address. The first was that there was no immediate concern for sustainability issues around biofuels. The select committee wanted to leave it up to the industry to voluntarily ensure the standards of sustainability for its fuels. The National members I have heard tonight said that they are sure these companies would have this issue paramount in their minds and not use unsustainable biofuels. But that is not what we have seen overseas, that is not what we have seen in the European Union, and it is not what we have seen in America. The National members provided no evidence that it is going to be any different in New Zealand if we actually saw our biofuel promotion schemes working.

The second reason was the report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. I would like to acknowledge the amount of work that went into it, but let us not take this report out of context. What we are talking about is a big report, and all the commissioner said was there was no credible cost-effective means of monitoring. It was not a damning report of the whole bill that meant it should be thrown out. We could have addressed it in the select committee; we could have amended it. But the fact is the main problem that the Parliamentary Commissioner’s report highlighted was that we are going to have a double standard. We are going to have sustainable biofuels, but how on earth are we going to have sustainability standards for fossil fuels? Because what we know is that this is the greatest strategic risk to our economy, but also to our planet. We know we are seeing a temperature rise of 0.8 degrees. We have got dire warnings coming from the world’s top scientist in relation to climate change, and the fact is that it highlights how unsustainable our current oil addiction is in New Zealand. So I note, when you look at this report, the one recommendation that National took out of this pretty substantial report was the one recommendation that we should get rid of the bill. What about all the other recommendations that we have seen in this report? Why were they not adopted by the Government? I think that is a key question that I have not heard any of the National members address tonight.

The third issue identified in the select committee report was the lack of immediate biofuel take-up in New Zealand. We have heard that it is less than 1 percent. The Government scrapped Labour’s scheme. The Government budgeted $36 million towards supporting biofuel production. What we have seen today is that there is less than $3 million in pick-up. This does not say much about biofuels, but it says a lot about the National Government and its promotion of it. What we have seen is the Government delay the fuel levy, so the market signal has been skewed towards consuming more petrol and diesel in New Zealand by its decisions.

The fourth point raised in the select committee report was that the Government already has, under the Energy (Fuels, Levies, and References) Act, the ability to set standards through regulations on fuels, including biofuels. We acknowledge that point, but the question to the Government is whether it has any plan to actually enforce some standards using these regulations it has in its power. Because it is not. It is not thinking proactively. It is stuck in the “drill it” mind-set, and all it wants to see is New Zealanders keep on consuming oil and gas, because it lines the pockets of a few companies that are delivering hardly any jobs, hardly any profits, and hardly any taxes, because there are so many exemptions. All the profits flow offshore.

So at a time when the greatest strategic risk to our economy is, in fact, our oil dependence, when our single greatest import is imported fossil fuels from overseas, when for every US$1 price rise in a barrel of oil we are seeing $40 million to $60 million wiped off our GDP—with a US$1 increase—and when we are seeing fuel prices now at the highest rate they have been in 4 years, this Government is not doing enough to promote biofuels. It is not promoting certainty in the industry by passing this bill and allowing biofuels sustainability. It also comes with a massive opportunity cost, because as the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, the select committee, and even Minister Brownlee have identified, biofuels are a tremendously exciting opportunity for New Zealand. The biofuels industry believes it could supply 30 percent of the country’s transport fuel needs from biofuel—from dairy waste product, forestry product, used cooking oils, and New Zealand - grown canola. The Bioenergy Association believes this could be a $6 billion industry here.

We are pioneering the science around cellulosic ethanol, around algae of the second-generation biofuels. This is what we should be exporting overseas, but instead the Government is stuck in the “drill it, mine it, sell it, cut it” mind-set. It is the only plan it has for the economy, which is benefiting very few and is actually harming our economic prospects. So we can have sustainable biofuels in New Zealand, we can be delivering cleaner fuels, we can be delivering jobs for Kiwis, we can be reducing our strategic dependence on oil, and we can kick that addiction, but we are not going to do it with the current mind-set of the National Government. Kia ora.

PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) : I rise to speak on the Sustainable Biofuel Bill, and I must say I do find it very interesting that the last speaker, Gareth Hughes from the Greens, is worried about New Zealand’s dependence on imported oil and how dangerous this is. Yet most of his time was spent trying to stop us from actually increasing the flow of our own indigenous oil, because he will not allow anything to happen or any risk to be taken. So there is a bit of a contradiction there. The best way that we can get ourselves free from a dependence on foreign oil is to be able to drill for some of our own.

The reality is that I am certainly not hearing a clamour in my neighbourhood, or anywhere I go, for more biofuels. I am not finding people running up to me on the street saying: “Where are more biofuels?”. Interestingly, I think there was a grand total of 10 people who queued up to submit on this Sustainable Biofuel Bill, so again, I do not think this is the No. 1 top issue on people’s minds. I think that the No. 1 issue on people’s minds is actually trying to make ends meet in difficult times, and trying to make ends meet in difficult times is about trying to make sure that the fuel bills are as low as they can be. That is why I am not surprised there is not a great deal of enthusiasm for well-meaning and well-intentioned schemes that ultimately put up the cost of petrol.

People want to get from A to B in the cheapest way possible. They want to get on with their lives and make a living, get their children to where they need to go, and run their businesses in the most efficient manner, and that is what we are focused on, rather than the priorities of the Greens in this regard. I am not surprised either that there has not been much enthusiasm for the Biodiesel Grants Scheme, again, because I do not think the public is clamouring for what we are talking about here. So I think it is very sensible that the Local Government and Environment Committee recommended that we do not proceed with this bill.

The debate involves quite a lot of hyperbole. I think Mr Graham referred to genocide. I think that might be a bit over the top with what we are dealing with here, but what the biofuel industry does demonstrate to me, I think, is a classic example of the law of unintended consequences through legislation’s good intentions. Trying to introduce biofuels and reduce carbon emissions has led to all sorts of problems all around the world, raising the price of grain, and leading to starvation.

What surprises me is that the solution that is proffered here is just a slightly cleverer new subsidy or set of interventions or distortions in the market, so somehow we will be able to get around it by ever more clever regulation, which is missing the point entirely. When you start to subsidise and distort the economy in this way, by trying to encourage some group that the market does not recognise, then you inevitably lead to these unintended consequences and greater economic costs for everybody to bear. So I am not at all surprised that the result of the great subsidies for biofuels in the United States has been a rotten one, and an unhelpful one. So I think we need to be a lot more circumspect about how we go about these things. If it does not stack up to use tallow as a biofuel in an economic sense—

Moana Mackey: It does stack up.

PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, if it does stack up, they will be using it, and there must be some other more useful thing to do with this product than—[Interruption] Thank you very much. I do not think I will take that advice, Minister Coleman. If it makes sense, the market will reward it, and I think that is the point we need to recognise.

I do not have any great faith in the ability of the Green Party to work out exactly what people want in this area of biofuels. I think it would be far better placed to rely on what people want, and they want to get from A to B in their cars as cheaply as possible. I think that what we are doing here in our support for the existing provisions of the Energy (Fuels, Levies, and References) Act, which allow regulations to be set up if there was a great enthusiasm for biofuel, is something I am very comfortable with, and I am very comfortable with the regulations we have got in place.

I would not be at all surprised if, further down the line, there was a genuinely effective biofuel that was cheaper than the alternatives. Then it will take off, but I do not think this bill, in its attempt to try to perfect a distortion in the market, will solve any of the problems. So I am afraid I will have to oppose this bill.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) : It has just become blindingly obvious to me why, when that member who has just resumed his seat, Paul Goldsmith, paraded up and down the streets of Epsom, saying “Please don’t vote for me; vote for John Banks.”, he had such a huge ability to persuade people. I think that would have been a very easy request when he said: “Don’t vote for me.” That speech has just confirmed the people of Epsom’s correctness in choosing that as an option. That was an extraordinary speech—really extraordinary. I am not quite sure what the member stands for or against; neither was clear from his speech. Does the member support sustainability? I think that is probably a no. Does he support the use of biofuels? Not clear, either. This is not a trick question, but listen to it carefully: does he support his own Government’s subsidy on biofuels? Oh, no, he is going to consider that. He is seeking advice from “The Maestro”, Jonathan Coleman, on that very point. Could I recommend that you ignore it? Like the rest of his colleagues do, ignore it.

I was very pleased, however, to see that member take a call, because I thought that National had given up. It put poor old Nicky Wagner and Maggie Barry up, and they really had to work hard to justify to their former so-called blue-green constituency how they could possibly be voting against sustainable biofuels legislation. How could they do that? Just amazing. Well, I am looking forward to the next Bluegreens conference, where they will be explaining it to the National Party members up and down the country who I know are saying “They are voting against what?”. They are truly voting against the Sustainable Biofuel Bill on the grounds of sustainability. Well, work that one out. I have listened to all those members’ speeches tonight. I have listened to all their speeches, and what the member who spoke earlier from the Green Party, Gareth Hughes, said is absolutely right. They are voting against it because it is a Green Party bill, not because they have any principles or values or any integrity in their voting. They are just voting against it because they could not bear to see a Green Party bill progress.

Well, I think we should be a little more mature in this Parliament. I think we should vote for bills if we think they are good and vote against them if we think they are bad, regardless of which party is introducing them. We have had MMP in this Parliament for quite a long time, and I would have thought that might be one of the lessons that could be learnt from our new voting system. Talking about MMP, I want to acknowledge the former co-leader of the Green Party Jeanette Fitzsimons and say what a huge contribution she made, clearly, not to progressing this issue but to getting the issue on the table in Parliament and arousing a huge amount of debate. My colleague Moana Mackey, who gave the most sensible contribution amongst the rabble from National, and was followed closely after by Grant Robertson and Gareth Hughes—thank goodness, some sense during this debate—outlined very clearly the issues that were raised during our introduction as a Labour-led Government of the biofuels issue, the contribution that Jeanette Fitzsimons made, the debate that happened at the select committee, and the changes that were made. Metiria Turei eventually became the lead spokesperson, I think, on that issue, and now Kennedy Graham has picked it up, so it has been around Parliament for a long time.

I suppose it is really quite odd to think that after all that thinking, all the contributions from the submitters, and the work that the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment did, and after the officials put in hours and hours of work to support a sustainable biofuels industry in New Zealand, here we are on Wednesday night in Parliament and National, ACT, and Peter Dunne, I suppose—and I do not know about the Māori Party; I have not heard its contribution yet—are going to vote it down. What is it about a sustainable biofuels industry in New Zealand that we do not want? I do not understand it.

Paul Goldsmith: We don’t want the price.

Hon RUTH DYSON: The member who did not want anyone to vote for him made an interjection. Fortunately, I did not hear it. I am really relieved, actually, that I did not. [Interruption] No, it is a he. It is whatever his name is, whom John Banks beat. It is the young man who wrote John Banks’ biography, then stood against him and asked people not to vote for him.

The biofuels industry itself has told us that it could provide us, as a nation, with 30 percent of our fuel needs. I think that sounds quite good. I think that that is something that most New Zealanders would aspire to. Most New Zealanders do not like our reliance on imported fuel, and we particularly do not like the price. What is it about New Zealand jobs that the National Party does not like? We had a huge amount of interest and commitment from the biofuels industry, which has subsequently cost hundreds and hundreds of jobs because National pulled it. That is why the industry was not interested in contributing to this legislation at these last stages: because National had made it clear it was going to vote it down, whereas previously it had been active and involved and contributing. We know the way that the industry could change the sustainability of our economy. [Interruption] That is true. The National Party has lost one of its leading environmental thinkers and contributors, with the resignation of Nick Smith. I am not going to dwell on that, other than to say that on issues like this he would have been the sole voice in Cabinet speaking any sense, and, by the sound of the contributions this evening, the sole voice in the caucus speaking sense on this issue. If the National Party is serious about a future for New Zealand that is better than it currently is, it needs to have a plan. It needs to look to the future and ask what sort of country and society we want to have. A critical part of that has to be sustainability, and the biofuels issue needs to be addressed.

I think it was really petty politics, actually, that caused National to just dump so hard on the work that the Labour-led Government had done previously with the package that been worked on so hard. As we heard already from previous speakers, we know that we would have reduced our greenhouse emissions, we would have had a security in New Zealand from knowing that any biofuels that we did import would not be at the cost of food production—and that is really important—and that we would not have had any threats to our biodiversity. Those were the three critical issues that the Local Government and Environment Committee has looked at and that have been discussed with us tonight.

These principles, the sustainability principles, which are outlined in this legislation that is now championed by Kennedy Graham, were originally in Labour’s Energy (Fuels, Levies, and References) Amendment Act. That was the legislation that was not just repealed by National but repealed under urgency by National. It has done that far too often, under urgency, without any consideration or input from the public about an issue that could really help us in the future, and make us not just a more sustainable country but a more envied country internationally—and that is what we should aspire to. We would have had the 60 million - litre biodiesel plant in the Bay of Plenty. Is there anyone who currently lives in the Bay of Plenty who says “No, thank you very much. We have got plenty of work up here. We don’t want a sustainable industry with high-quality, high-value, well-paid jobs in our area. Please just leave us as we are.”? I do not think that is true. That 60 million - litre plant was pulled after the National Government dumped our legislation. The Bay of Plenty members of Parliament in this House should hang their heads in shame.

It is a total disgrace that that huge opportunity for New Zealand was lost because of the National Government’s action. We had two production plants in Auckland and Waharoa. Both of them had plans to expand, had gone public on their plans to expand their biofuel production, and now they have said: “Well, they’re canned. They’re put on the side.” Nicky Wagner thinks that is fine. She probably says, like Gerry Brownlee does about the housing crisis in Christchurch, “Let’s just leave it to the market.” This is what happens when you do not support an industry that could do so much better for us as New Zealanders. They just say: “Well, we’re not going to expand. We’re not going to build our plants.” This is a huge opportunity lost. That is because National has no plan for the future. Between Labour and the Greens I think we had a really tidy package. There was a huge amount of effort and work put into it. This legislation deserves to be supported.

LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) : I was proud to be a member of the Local Government and Environment Committee, which considered this Sustainable Biofuel Bill, so I find quite offensive some of the comments that have been made from that side of the House suggesting that the select committee members from this side of the House were not interested in exploring the concepts of the bill. It is fair to say that this Government very clearly supports clean energy, clean technology, and renewable energy, focusing on electric cars. In my own electorate of Taupō, last year in the Clean Energy Centre we saw an expo that was showing really exciting opportunities for development both in terms of biofuels and in terms of electric cars. So I am more interested in examples from my own electorate than in words that that side are spouting without anything to back them up.

If you actually look at the submissions—and one of the submissions, clearly, was from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment—there was, in general, support for the intent, but the difficulty was that the intent was not going to be delivered by what was being described in this bill. I want to give a couple of specific examples, including one of the submitters, the Bioenergy Association of New Zealand. This is a group that you would assume would support the bill. Right? You would think it would have an interest in it. Right? [Interruption] Listen to what I have got to say. Its main objection was that it did not want to create barriers to new biofuels industries that were competing with long-term industry. It did not want to see barriers for entry for new biofuels to be developed. Those are not my words; those are the words of one of the submitters. It is concerned about the fact that it cannot see new technologies. It wanted to see new technologies being developed. I am directly quoting. I am directly quoting.

It is quite interesting. If you look at other examples, you will see that Air New Zealand has a significant interest in showing that it is sustainable, that it is changing the way it practises, and that it is using new technologies in its business. This is what it said. It agrees with the principles, but it does not believe in the need to legislate, and it said that the way the bill is drafted is too prescriptive. So this is not necessarily about the intent, and it is not about sustainable biofuels; it is about the actual bill and whether or not it was going to be able to deliver the intended outcome.

I am very proud to be a Bluegreen. It is an incredibly important part of where this Government is going in terms of the balance between the environment and the economy. There are jobs being created in my electorate through clean energy, but we have to make sure that if we pass legislation it is good legislation. So the reason we are not able to support this is because it is actually not going to deliver the intent. The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, whom I hold in very high regard, does not believe that this piece of legislation as it was drafted will deliver the intent. We took quite a lot of detail and time through the select committee deliberations, even to the extent of setting up a subcommittee to work on it further. We cannot support it.

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

ANDREW LITTLE (Labour) : It is a pleasure to be standing and speaking in support of the Sustainable Biofuel Bill. It is disappointing that, irrespective of the time that this bill has had to take to get to this point, it lacks the support of the Government. What is most disappointing is just how visionless and lacking in foresight the speeches from the Government members have been this afternoon and tonight. The thing is this: as somebody who comes from the capital of fossil fuels, and oil and gas, in Taranaki, and who has worked closely with many of the workers who work in that industry, and understanding the importance of that industry to our economy today, the truth is that our economy, like the world economy, is in transition. We are in transition because we have to be, moving from the oil-dominant, fossil fuel - dominant world to a world where our sources of energy are going to have to be renewable.

What this bill offered—or still offers, if there is any chance of a change of heart—is not only the chance of a source of energy of biofuels, but also a biofuels market that is sustainable, that is durable, and that has a long term. I do not think there is anybody who looks at this bill and the circumstances we are in at the moment and thinks it is perfect or that the solution that it offers up is perfect, but it is a start. It is a very important start—some might say a continuation, actually, of work that the previous Labour Government had started—to help us with that transition.

What is so disappointing is when you hear the speeches that say: “This won’t make a difference. We will just stick with what we’ve got. We don’t have to do anything.”, because we cannot continue to put our heads in the sand. We have to look out not 5 years, but 15, 20, 30-plus years, because that is going to be the future that those generations who come after us will have to face. We are failing in our responsibilities as today’s leaders—community leaders—if we are not looking forward and confronting those challenges, and preparing the way for the next generation to actually come up with some meaningful solutions. And this bill, addressing one of the most severe challenges of the modern world and the modern economy, which is about the future sources of fuels, is absolutely critical.

We are moving from the old economy. We are moving to the new economy. There are those who say: “Listen, we will never run out of oil.”, and it is probably true to say—almost certainly true to say—that there are plenty of oil deposits around the world, but the truth is they are getting harder and harder to exploit. The measure that is most important is the return on energy invested. The energy taken to exploit existing, predicted, or projected fossil fuel sources is going to be greater and greater, so that the real return is less.

What promoting and encouraging a market for biofuels does is start to provide us with the alternative. It starts to establish that market. It starts to create an environment in which investment is encouraged, promoted, and, ultimately, incentivised. That is the role of the Government. It is the Government that can use its power, its resources, its knowledge, and its information to look ahead multiple generations and to look ahead in the long term in a way that business, certainly big business, is being proven to be so incapable of doing. Business might be very good at looking at investment opportunities that will generate a return in the short term, but it is notoriously bad at looking at the extraordinary long-term investment horizons. The Government must play that role. When it comes to sources of energy, and when it comes to sources of fuel, then the Government has a critical role to play in that.

Labour has started. Labour started a very good programme with its biofuels programme and in supporting the biofuels industry. It played a role in starting and creating the opportunity to establish that market. This Government, so tragically and regrettably, shortly after it was elected took urgency to essentially scuttle that market. The prospect of investment in a new plant in the Bay of Plenty, a 60 million - litre biodiesel plant, is gone because this Government lacks the foresight and the vision to understand what those challenges will be in 20 or 30 years’ time.

We need to support that industry. As I say, this may not be the perfect solution, but it is a start. It is a start to getting that investment in place and a start to creating the industry and the jobs of the future, because that is fundamental too. Who wants, in 30 years’ time, when the next generation of leaders—young leaders and community leaders now—are grappling with the issue of sustainable sources of fuel, for them to look back and say that we had that opportunity? We had that opportunity, which the Labour Government took in its last term, and which was abandoned by this Government—the opportunity that this House has in 2012 to meet that challenge. They will look back on that in 30 years’ time and say that we had that opportunity and we let them down. Well, that is not a result that I particularly relish living with. If we are responsible, and if we are forward thinking, then we will accept that actually this bill offers something very important to the future of New Zealand.

So I celebrate and I acknowledge the great work of those who have started this legislation: Jeanette Fitzsimons, the Green Party members, and the Labour members who have sat on the Local Government and Environment Committee and heard the submissions, including from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, who raised issues of practicality, not issues of principle. I acknowledge and celebrate the work of those people and say at the very least let us respect that, and let us look seriously at the measures that this bill puts up, which are about encouraging a step towards the future. It is a future that will get harder and harder if we fail to grapple with these problems.

We need to be honest with those who are in the fossil fuels exploitation industry today—not only those who are making the investments, who are looking for a return straight away and a return ongoing for many years, but also those who are working in the industry—and start saying that we need to make this change. It is legislation like this that paves the way, that assists us, and that meets that important challenge for the future. So we need to support, and take whatever steps we can to support, the emerging biofuel industry.

The real impact of the abdication that this Government has taken in relation to this industry, the abandonment of its support for it, and its refusal to pass this legislation is that it misses the opportunity for a whole new area of investment that is so crucial to this country and to its future. We could be world leaders.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Acknowledge the Bay of Plenty.

ANDREW LITTLE: The Bay of Plenty, which has a representative in this House, could be a leader.

Hon Ruth Dyson: What does Simon Bridges say about it?

ANDREW LITTLE: What does Simon Bridges say? The rising star of the National Party has more at stake in this legislation than just about anyone, but he is willing to sit with his colleagues and abandon it. That is the shame of it and that is the disappointment of it. It is so disappointing. We will look back on this moment and Mr Bridges will look back on this moment some years hence, and he will kick himself—he will possibly do even more than that—and say he should have done more. The challenge for him is whether he will stare in the face those who will be let down by this, and those who will be deprived or short-changed by our failure to pass this legislation. Will he stand and look them in the face and say: “I could have done better; I should have done better.”?

It is not too late. It is not too late for the members on that side of the House to say that this is worthwhile. It is a drop in the ocean, but it is a start as we pave our way to a less fossil fuel - dominant world, which is so important.

EUGENIE SAGE (Green) on behalf of Metiria Turei (Co-Leader—Green): I move, That the Crown Minerals (Protection of Public Conservation Land Listed in the Fourth Schedule) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate that the bill be referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee. I am pleased to speak on behalf of Green co-leader Metiria Turei on her member’s bill, the Crown Minerals (Protection of Public Conservation Land Listed in the Fourth Schedule) Amendment Bill. First, I want to thank all those thousands of New Zealanders who worked in 2009 and 2010 alongside the Green Party, the 2precious2mine coalition, iwi, hapū, and conservation groups to protect our most treasured places from John Key’s “dig it, mine it, and destroy it” plans. Because of the collective effort of New Zealanders everywhere, we stopped National from allowing mining corporates to plunder nature’s cathedrals: our national parks, marine reserves, and wilderness areas. Like so many New Zealanders, the Greens love this country. We will do everything we can to protect our wild landscapes and seabed from the permanent destruction this Government wants in order to generate a few more pieces of silver.

Before I get into the details of this bill, I want to acknowledge that although we won that fight on schedule 4 in 2010, the mining issue continues to divide communities across this country. Some mining in some areas, such as small West Coast alluvial goldmines, is not problematic. But where mining plans are destructive of our climate, such as Solid Energy’s plans to mine low-grade lignite in Southland and convert it to diesel, or Bathurst Resources’ plans to dig up the insect kingdom of the Denniston Plateau, then we will oppose those plans, and we have a strong track record of winning those fights.

The Green Party stands in support of all of those iwi, hapū, whānau, and community organisations who are fighting the plans of this Government and foreign corporates to mine and drill our seas, particularly in Northland and off the East Coast. Deep-sea oil drilling poses a significant risk to our oceans, and, as the Rena catastrophe demonstrates when we have containers still falling off the ship and oil still spilling from it, we do not have the resources to manage a disaster of this scale, much less one of the scale that happened to the Deepwater Horizon. So all of those who are fighting the oil drilling, deep-sea drilling, and mining plans, which put our marine environment at risk, have the Green Party’s full support.

It was the Green Party that brought John Key’s mining plans to the public attention in August 2009. We challenged the claim that it was just a stocktake of the country’s mineral resources. In October 2009 we revealed that that stocktake included Mount Aspiring National Park, among others, and in 2010 we dismantled the National Party’s fallacious economic argument. We showed that the minuscule mining royalties are not worth the damage to our economy. They are not worth more than our pride, or worth more than our sense of place and identity. By February 2010, we and the public had forced the Government to change its agenda. We had forced National to scale back its mining madness. Yet that pressure continued to mount. We had tens of thousands of New Zealanders marching down Auckland’s Queen Street, and making their submissions to the Government. We know that 40,000 New Zealanders signed the Green Party petition against mining our treasured places. These are our national parks; they are not National’s parks. These treasured places are too precious to mine.

Although we celebrated that victory in 2010, we know that more needs to be done, and hence this bill. It is only a wee bill, but it is a powerful tool for the protection of our most treasured places on land and at sea. That is why I expect that National will oppose it. John Key tried to quietly take away the protection that schedule 4 gives to our national parks, to our wilderness areas, and to our marine reserves. This bill would stop him. John Key tried to hide what his Government was doing by talking only to industry, and not to the people. This bill would stop that. This bill would require a Government to place legislation before this House before it could remove any land from schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act, and the protection that that schedule provides. A Government could no longer do that through an Order in Council on the recommendation of the Ministers of energy and conservation. It could not do it secretly. It would have to do it in the full force of the public gaze, even if that was done under urgency, as is sometimes the case with controversial legislation.

I expect that National members will oppose this bill, because they would prefer not to see 40,000 people on the streets of Auckland saying “No, leave our treasured places alone. You can’t dig them up.” That march was the biggest in a decade. We had iwi, the 2precious2mine coalition, Coromandel Watchdog, Environment and Conservation Organisations of New Zealand, the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society, Greenpeace, and thousands of people marching down Queen Street to protect our special places. This small bill is the next logical step in carrying those people’s wishes into law. National has an agenda of “dig it up, drill it, cut it up, sell it”. I would be pleasantly surprised if National members support this bill, and I would certainly welcome that. We hope that members of this House will show their support for this bill to protect our most special, treasured places.

NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central) : Thank you, Eugenie Sage, for your introduction to the Crown Minerals (Protection of Public Conservation Land Listed in the Fourth Schedule) Amendment Billon behalf of Metiria Turei. This bill was conceived during the time back in 2010 when the Government was looking for feedback on its discussion paper Maximising our Mineral Potential: Stocktake of Schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act and beyond. Like most members’ bills, it was designed to draw attention to the schedule 4 debate and to raise the member’s profile. It has done that job and is now unnecessary, and I will explain why.

I also want to note that this Parliament should not be passing legislation unless it adds real value. Excessive, complex, and unnecessary legislation is an expensive indulgence, and the temptation for parliamentarians to pass bills just because they can, regardless of quality, should be resisted. At the time the bill was drafted, the Government was talking about mineral resources that were spread across our country and the large proportion of mineral potential in schedule 4 land. The Government talked about the dilemma that the location of our mineral wealth caused us, because sometimes the richest mineral deposits are in places where conservation, cultural, or tourism values are high.

New Zealanders want a more prosperous country. They often talk about the jobs and incomes that are available in Australia, and they want to go there not because it is a better country but because they believe that it is more prosperous and, because of that, that there are more opportunities. The jobs, the incomes, and the opportunities that are available in Australia are not there because their economy is stronger than ours across the board but because it is underpinned by mining. New Zealanders want a more prosperous country, but they also want to conserve our natural environment, and that is the tension.

In its discussion document the Government agreed with the average New Zealander, saying that it was determined to see living standards in New Zealand rise but that it did not want to see conservation values lost or our clean, green image sacrificed. The Government assured people that it would not be removing large sections from the protection afforded by schedule 4, but it was keen to make the most of New Zealand’s mineral resources in an efficient and environmentally responsible way, and was taking input from the community before making any decisions. As the discussion continued, the public of New Zealand made it very clear that they did not want mining on schedule 4 land. So the Government listened. The public had spoken, and Ministers Brownlee and Wilkinson respected public opinion and ruled out any changes to schedule 4 land. In fact, quite voluntarily, they actually improved the status quo by adding 14 more parcels of land, totalling 12,400 hectares, to schedule 4. They also agreed that in the future all areas given classifications equivalent to the current schedule 4, such as national parks and marine reserves, would automatically become part of schedule 4. So in the face of a public dilemma and discussion, which weighed up the economy and the environmental outcomes and—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Interjections should be rare and reasonable. I cannot hear the member.

Hon Ruth Dyson: You’re not missing a thing.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Excuse me—I am on my feet, and the member will take a walk if she does that again. I do want to hear the member, so let us have a bit more decorum.

NICKY WAGNER: Thank you, Mr Speaker. So in the face of the public dilemma and the discussion, which weighed up economic and environmental outcomes and came down on the side of the environment, existing legislation worked well. Communities and the public spoke out. They had their opinions listened to, and the Act delivered the outcome people wanted.

In the face of legislation that is working really well for the public, I am concerned that this bill, the Crown Minerals (Protection of Public Conservation Land Listed in the Fourth Schedule) Amendment Bill, might, contrary to its intentions, make changes to schedule 4 much easier in future. I am sure that that is not what Metiria Turei wanted. Let me explain. Under the current Act, the Minister of Conservation can remove specified land for schedule 4 through an Order in Council only once public consultation has occurred. The current Act has extensive consultation requirements under section 61(5), and the Government is at risk of judicial review proceedings if the Act is not followed. Only after a full consultation process and the removal of land can the Minister then approve an access arrangement with a purpose of prospecting, exploitation, or mining. However, if this bill was passed, the Government of the day could introduce a small amending bill to remove land from schedule 4. It could go to the House without any public consultation at all, and through the House without select committee scrutiny if passed under urgency. Finally, it would not run the risk of judicial review. It would be a far easier process than what we have in existing legislation. So working on the principle that the existing legislation is not broken and does not need to be mended, I do not believe that this bill should pass.

It was conceived and put into the ballot when the public were concerned that their opinions would not be listened to in terms of mining schedule 4 land, but their opinions were listened to and respected, and I believe that the present Act is the best tool to conserve schedule 4 land. It requires extensive public consultation, and any Government not following that process could face a judicial review. The Act worked successfully for the public last year, and we do not need any further legislation. I do not support this bill.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) : Can I begin my contribution in supporting the Crown Minerals (Protection of Public Conservation Land Listed in the Fourth Schedule) Amendment Bill by congratulating the member who introduced it, Metiria Turei. I further congratulate the member Eugenie Sage, who brought it to the House today. The member made an extraordinarily considered and reasonable contribution, and I think it was blindingly obvious, actually, that members would support the legislation going to the next step.

But then we heard from Nicky Wagner. Well, Nicky, explain to us—I think it will come as great news to the public of New Zealand that National never had any serious intention of mining schedule 4 land, that that was not its intention, and that actually what it was doing was seeking feedback from the public. Well, it got it. Fifty thousand people marched down Queen Street, and that was an unheard-of demonstration of people across the board, from all manner of professions, backgrounds, and ages, who said: “Not yours to mine”.

When we have the opportunity to have this sentiment put into legislation, to reflect the public feedback that the member who has just resumed her seat, Nicky Wagner, so clearly wanted, and got, they are saying no. They are saying they will just leave it as it is because all they were doing was seeking public feedback. They do not want that overwhelming public feedback put into the law. Well, I do, and I am very pleased that Labour will be supporting this legislation, because the public do not have any faith in what Nicky Wagner said. We think it was more than just floating the idea out there to get public feedback. We think it was a real proposal, and the public responded.

Maggie Barry: They don’t have any faith in what you said. That’s why they voted you out.

Hon RUTH DYSON: Maggie Barry is again showing her true inclination—to dig it and mine it. She will not be supporting the legislation. I think she should go back to doing something where she can retain her integrity and credibility, rather than coming here and voting against legislation that protects our schedule 4 land from being mined. That is a really important thing to do, and nothing that member says will stop the public understanding that.

Then Nicky Wagner said that actually another reason for voting against this legislation is that it is unnecessary, excessive, and a regulatory regime that is too complex. It has two clauses in it. I do not really see how having—

Grant Robertson: It’s really only got one.

Hon RUTH DYSON: Well, no. It has got the access clause, to be fair. It has got the title, then it has got the commencement, and then it has got clause 3, where the principal Act is named, and then it has got clause 4, “Access arrangements in respect of Crown land”. You could not actually have a bill that was less complex, less bureaucratic, and less of a regulatory regime. All it says is that we do not want National to mine in schedule 4 land. It is the most precious land, and that has been determined because the land has been put in the schedule and therefore it should be protected. It is in a different category because of being placed as schedule 4 land.

Finally, the member made the point that it would be very easy, under this bill, for land to be removed from schedule 4. Well, she cannot have read the final clause. Perhaps it was a bit too wordy to wade through—it is all of six lines long. But, right in it, it says that this allows for amendment to schedule 4 “to add to, but not remove, any Crown owned land referred to in subsection (1A).” This specifically says it cannot be removed. It can only be added to as a result of this legislation.

It does not really matter whether the National Party was serious about mining land in schedule 4 or whether it just wanted public feedback, because, overwhelmingly, New Zealanders said no to that proposal. Whether it was floated or seriously proposed, what this legislation does is respect the view of the public, and puts it in legislation so that we can all have confidence that the genuine view of the public and our desire to see schedule 4 land properly protected from mining are retained.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) : National opposes the Crown Minerals (Protection of Public Conservation Land Listed in the Fourth Schedule) Amendment Bill. National is committed to developing our resources while protecting our environment. The Crown Minerals Act regime is being reviewed at the moment. The regime, of course, is 20 years old now. It is being reviewed to ensure that we do have the right balance between economic benefits and exploration, and safety and environmental concerns. We do take these concerns very seriously.

National has made good progress in improving energy, minerals, environmental, and safety regimes. For example, the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill is currently before the House. In fact, it is before the Local Government and Environment Committee. That piece of legislation sets up an environmental management regime in the exclusive economic zone, which is an area that, of course, Labour neglected in the 9 years that it held the Treasury benches.

There is also the establishment of the High Hazards Unit within the Department of Labour, which, of course, is a dedicated unit of inspectors who have the responsibility of regulating health and safety practices on oil and gas platforms, and also in geothermal installations, mines, tunnels, and quarries. After the 2010 consultation on schedule 4, National decided that all national parks and other types of high conservation value areas listed in schedule 4 will remain protected from mining.

This member’s bill is unnecessary, as the Crown Minerals Act already provides sufficient safeguards for schedule 4 land. Section 61 of the Crown Minerals Act requires public consultation before any Order in Council is made to add or remove land. The consultation process during 2010, which was on the proposal to remove land from schedule 4, found that the public generally opposed the proposed changes. As a result the proposed changes did not go ahead. The consultation process therefore, I submit, was effective. The Act also prevents land that is classified as an ecological area or islands in the Mercury Island group from being removed from schedule 4 through an Order in Council. National opposes this bill.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) : New Zealand First will emphatically support the Crown Minerals (Protection of Public Conservation Land Listed in the Fourth Schedule) Amendment Bill. The Crown Minerals Act, as it now is, would have been a sleeping dog, but this Government would not let it lie. It has obviously been willing to compromise conservation values in favour of the exploitation of resources. Nicky Wagner said that National wanted a prosperous country—and so do we all. The difference is that some of us will not do it at any cost.

There is no harm, however, in encouraging the sustainable use of New Zealand’s resources, and I emphasise the word “sustainable”. There is no need for a policy, either, of absolute prohibition on the use of the country’s resources. But the sustainability bar must be high, and in the case of conservation land the bar must be so high as to be virtually a prohibition where large-scale mining, in particular, is concerned.

I want to refer to section 61(2) of the existing Act, in which the Minister in deciding upon an access arrangement must have regard to certain things. Included are the objectives of any Act under which the land is administered, the purpose for which the land is held, policy statements, management plans, and safeguards against any potential adverse effects. It sounds all right, until you realise that, in fact, that is not only not a comprehensive list of what should be given regard to; it is in fact a very weak section altogether. If that is all a Minister did, then I think most members of the New Zealand public would regard that as a wholly inadequate process of consideration.

I also want to refer to section 61(5), which I think is even weaker. I totally reject Nicky Wagner’s description of the consultation process under that section as being comprehensive. It is anything but. Let me read it you. First of all it says that the Minister of Conservation must consult “to the extent that is reasonably practicable,”. Who on earth knows what that is, other than the Minister? That is highly subjective, and it is so wide that a Minister could decide whatever they like in terms of what is adequate consultation.

Section 61(5) goes on to say: “having regard to all the circumstances of the particular case,” and only “those persons the Ministers have reason to believe are representative of interests likely to be substantially affected” are those who need to be consulted. So this is not a section that provides for comprehensive, widespread, general public consultation. The consultation process is in fact not modern at all, let alone comprehensive. In fact, as far as I am concerned it really means that the Minister need listen only to his or her mates. That is, I think, exactly what has happened with this Government.

A modern consultation system requires comprehensive information processes, explanation—which means consultation genuinely pursued—and the consideration of submissions. There is nothing like any of that in this section of the Act. So we cannot have any confidence that there would be any consultation at all under this section. The Act is so deficient in these various ways that really it needs a complete overhaul. For those reasons, amongst others, this bill should be opposed.

But this bill is about process, not about substance. Hence National should really be supporting it if it really is interested in process and consultation. The bill asks only that if land is to be removed from schedule 4, then it should not be done by a Minister, especially given the deficient processes detailed in the existing Act. Exploitation proposals should, as this bill means, go through Parliament and be fully debated in public. That is necessary now, given the Government’s record. So New Zealand First does, as I said at the beginning, fully and emphatically support the bill as it now is.

MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore) : I rise to speak against the Crown Minerals (Protection of Public Conservation Land Listed in the Fourth Schedule) Amendment Bill, for much the same reasons as my colleagues. I do not see that there is any need for new laws. The bill is unnecessary. The legislation that we have currently covers the concerns of New Zealanders adequately, and that was proven when we listened last year. It has been proven time and again that when the public speak, we listen. We use the existing legislation well, and there is no need for this bill.

I would imagine that there are some small amendments that can be made. We are looking at some of the things that we are doing at the moment with the Crown Minerals Act. It provides sufficient safeguards for schedule 4 land, but we are looking at fine-tuning aspects. I think that along with our overall commitment to develop resources while protecting the environment, the regime that we are reviewing under the Crown Minerals Act, which is over 20 years old and does need a bit of a tweak, will ensure that we continue to balance economic benefits of exploration with safety and environmental concerns.

There are places in New Zealand that need careful and considered exploration. I look at Pike River and I see that the Pike River 29 may not be the only casualties; the economy of the West Coast will be too if we do not have the fortitude to look carefully at what we have. Although I appreciate that the Greens and, to a certain extent, Labour as well do not really want to go too much further into mineral exploration, the West Coast and other parts of New Zealand deserve to be given the opportunity to look at what they have and to use the resources they have to continue to keep their young people there and to keep the skills within their communities and environment. So I urge that we do not do blanket bans and shut down the prospects we have for mineral exploration. I think that prospecting and looking at these things is what is required. Adding in unnecessary laws does no good at all. Section 61(5) of the Crown Minerals Act does require public consultation before any Order in Council is made to add or remove land. These things work—

Denis O’Rourke: And adequate consultation.

MAGGIE BARRY: Adequate consultation. This has worked in the past, and it will work again. Have faith in democracy and in the ability of some politicians and political parties, Mr O’Rourke, to listen to what the people say, because that is what we do, and that is why we are back in Parliament for a second term. That is part of the lesson you could learn here, coming in in the party that you have.

Our consultation process has been effective and will continue to be so, and I think that we have proved that time and again—democracy at work. When we look at what happens in the Act, it prevents land that is classified as an ecological area, or islands in the Mercury Islands group, for example, from being removed from schedule 4 through an Order in Council. These are precious places. These need to be protected, and they are adequately protected.

National is making great progress in improving energy and mineral resources regulation. There are a raft of things. The Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill is currently before the House and will go through one of the select committees that I sit on. It is an important environmental regime. The robust process it goes through at select committee level ensures that the legislation that comes before this House is actually able to do the job it is designed to do.

The High Hazards Unit, which we established within the Department of Labour, is another excellent device. It is a dedicated unit of inspectors that oversees and regulates health and safety practices on oil and gas platforms and, as well as that, in geothermal installations, mines, tunnels, and quarries.

These are measures that we have brought in that are doing the job and doing it well, unlike this proposed bill. After the 2010 consultation on schedule 4 we did decide that all the national parks and the other types of high conservation value lands that are listed there will remain protected from mining. We have said that, and we are sticking to it. We listen to people. I think that the public consultation process is very adequate. I do not think we need this bill. I think it is unnecessary, and that is why I speak against it. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) : I want to respond to just a couple of the things that have been said tonight. The first is that this bill, the Crown Minerals (Protection of Public Conservation Land Listed in the Fourth Schedule) Amendment Bill, is a complex bill. That came to us from Nicky Wagner. I just want to reiterate that the complexity of this bill is something that the member may wish to reflect significantly further on if she just looks at the one truly operative clause. It is the one operative clause—

Iain Lees-Galloway: How many lines?

GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, six in the actual clause and then two immediately before it in the preamble. So that is difficult! To reiterate, what it actually says is that this means that lands can still be added to schedule 4, and I think that is something that, presumably, National would like to see able to be done by a Minister. But if land is going to be removed, then we would think that a Government like National, interested in democracy, would think that bringing that issue back to the House for there to be legislation would be something it would support. I would suggest that if National does not support this bill, that is a true testament to how it feels about New Zealanders’ environment, and a true testament to just how out of touch it is getting with New Zealanders. New Zealanders have shown time and time again that they want our conservation land protected, they want our coastlines protected, and they want our national parks protected. It is part of being New Zealanders.

This Government does not seem to have got it, because, as Nicky Wagner told us, National members went out to New Zealand looking for feedback. Well, they got it all right—50,000 people down Queen Street and thousands of submissions on the proposal. They got the feedback but they are not listening. If they were listening tonight, they would support this bill. All this bill does is put in place a regime that reflects that concern that New Zealanders have.

I have to pick up Maggie Barry’s comment about whether the consultation process is adequate. Phil Heatley thinks that adequate consultation is asking John Key how his day was. That is what Phil Heatley thinks is public consultation. Simon Bridges might extend public consultation just a little bit further—perhaps to the senior citizens’ lounge in Tauranga. That will be public consultation. It is not enough—it is not sufficient—when we are talking about New Zealanders’ land, land that New Zealanders value. There is no way that a bill like this should scare National members. They should be prepared to support this because it is in line with New Zealanders’ values. It is in line with what New Zealanders want for our—

Louise Upston: Like you’d know.

GRANT ROBERTSON: What is that? No, she is not repeating it. Louise Upston knows that this is in line with New Zealanders’ values. National is out of touch on this issue. National has to get over the idea that the economy and the environment are in some kind of eternal struggle and that they have to battle it out in order to work out the future for New Zealand. It needs to get with the programme that New Zealanders actually see the economy and the environment together. Of course we want sustainable economic growth, but we are not prepared to see schedule 4 land—land that has been put there because it is of value to New Zealanders—tossed away in the search for some minerals that might be there.

The process that National went through when it was doing the stocktake that we heard about earlier was quite instructive for the National members’ views on these kinds of issues. A stocktake was undertaken 2 years ago, they told us, to identify the conservation, tourism, and cultural values of schedule 4 areas, and to identify areas possessing significant mineral potential. The Government then went on to tell us what the four main conclusions were of that stocktake that was to identify the conservation, tourism, and cultural values. There were four main conclusions. One of them was that New Zealand is mineral rich, another was that there is plenty of mineral potential, the third was that the mineral potential could be developed, and the fourth was that the information on mineral potential is limited. Can anyone see what is missing from that? It is anything about the cultural or tourism values. That was what drove the stocktake. There was no way the Government was going to be put off until it faced those 50,000 New Zealanders and New Zealanders right around the country who opposed this.

We support this bill. It is a good bill. It should go to a select committee so that the New Zealand public can have a further say. The fact that the National Party is opposing it tonight shows that it is out of touch with New Zealanders’ views on conservation, on how we look after land, and on how we develop a sustainable economy. Its being out of touch like that will be remembered by New Zealanders.

DENISE ROCHE (Green) : It is my privilege to rise to support this bill, the Crown Minerals (Protection of Public Conservation Land Listed in the Fourth Schedule) Amendment Bill, which is being brought to you from the Green Party. This bill would better protect our most precious conservation areas from mining. Today it is receiving its first reading and it is very heartening, indeed, to hear the support that is coming from across the House.

We want to protect our national parks, wilderness areas, and marine reserves because they are our most precious conservation areas. Any decision to allow them to be prospected or mined should be made by Parliament through an Act of Parliament, not by Ministers acting alone. Notwithstanding what this side of the House has been saying, a judicial review is not going to cut it. It relies on a decision being made after a decision has been made. It also assumes that we must trust our Ministers, and, frankly, I am not sure that that will cut it with the New Zealand public, either.

We need this bill because our most precious conservation areas need greater protection. The Government has a clear agenda to mine it, drill it, dig it up, sell it off, flog it off—whatever.

Hon Phil Heatley: Shoot it!

DENISE ROCHE: Yes. Let us take coal, for instance. We have just had a massive demonstration about Bathurst Resources. Solid Energy has got 6 billion tonnes of lignite for urea briquettes and diesel that it is currently exploiting. There is deep-sea oil prospecting, and, of course, there is also fracking. New Zealand is on the cusp of a large expansion of the fracking industry, which, to date, has seen approximately 30 to 40 wells fracked in Taranaki since the early 1990s. A huge amount of the country is open to fracking, with permits that allow it currently standing at 4.5 million hectares, added to another 6 million hectares to be considered for fracking at the moment. In the last year we have seen a 170 percent increase in the rate of new wells, compared with the average rate for the previous 18 years.

Several oil companies are also very interested in New Zealand’s oil and gas resources and have indicated that fracking will also be on the cards. TAG Oil, for instance, has $120 million budgeted for exploratory wells and is pursuing what it itself describes as a very aggressive programme, and it has stated that it will be applying for consents very shortly.

The East Coast, Hawke’s Bay, and Horizons regions are just about to consent their first wells, and we are entering a new stage in fracking history in New Zealand. The Gisborne District Council has admitted that it does not have the expertise to regulate fracking, and in a recent report, after investigating the Canadian situation, is asking for standardising resource consent conditions. The Government has wiped its hands of this. It has left it up to small councils, which have no resources to decide these issues. That is why we need protection for our most precious areas.

This bill is simply about adding another layer of democratic protection to what we have and hold for all New Zealanders. It is simply about making sure that this Parliament, the elected people of New Zealand, gets to make a decision about whether schedule 4 should, in fact, be exploited, and whether, in fact, that will benefit New Zealanders.

This bill is not restrictive. There is flexibility there. It is simply saying that these are the things that we hold dear. We have had it mentioned before: 50,000 New Zealanders marched to protect schedule 4 and oppose mining in schedule 4 places, and to some extent the Government did listen. In the Hauraki Gulf, where I am from, Great Barrier Island had the schedule 4 mining removed. It was no longer under threat. We ask that that side of the House, that the National Party, support us in this bill. It is for the benefit of all New Zealanders, and it is something that we all must do.

PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) : I rise to speak against this bill, the Crown Minerals (Protection of Public Conservation Land Listed in the Fourth Schedule) Amendment Bill, I am afraid.

We have heard a lot about the “most precious” land in the country that we talking about here—the “most precious”. But what exactly are we talking about? Are we talking about a couple of square kilometres? Are we talking about 100 square kilometres? No, we are actually talking about one-third of the land mass of New Zealand in schedule 4 in the Department of Conservation estate—one-third, or 89,564 square kilometres—so we are talking about one-third of the country, almost. In square feet, roughly 365,000 square feet, I think, is the figure. So what we are talking about as the “most precious”—every hectare—is one-third of the land mass of New Zealand.

When we are talking about a regime that allows the country to grow and make some progress, then I think the arrangements we have in place at the moment, whereby that area is very well protected—but also we have the ability through the Crown Minerals Act to allow the Minister of Energy and Resources and the Minister of Conservation to amend that schedule through a clear and open process—are very sufficient. This bill, which is all about making it more and more difficult, is unnecessary and out of tune with the needs and requirements of this country, so I oppose this bill. Thank you.

MOANA MACKEY (Labour) : I just wonder whether the member who has just resumed his seat, Paul Goldsmith, understands that not all Department of Conservation land is in schedule 4.

Hon Ruth Dyson: He doesn’t know that.

MOANA MACKEY: Oh, so all Department of Conservation land is in schedule 4. Oh dear! I mean, if that is the level of knowledge in the National Party and the depth of understanding of this bill, the Crown Minerals (Protection of Public Land Listed in the Fourth Schedule) Amendment Bill, then no wonder it is voting against it. National members clearly have no idea what it actually does. The Minister of Energy and Resources is actually in the House. I am disappointed he did not take a call. I know he is gutted that he was on House duty while one of the bills in his portfolio area was going through on a members’ day. Two bills in his portfolio area are going through on a members’ day, and he has had to sit there and listen to the kind of drivel that has come from Government members who clearly have no idea what they are talking about. However, in saying that, he did admit that he drafted their speeches, so I think that also speaks volumes.

I want to congratulate the Green member Metiria Turei, who brought this bill to the House, and Eugenie Sage, who spoke to it at the first reading. But I do have to say that it is actually a little bit sad that we even need to be passing this legislation. Although Labour will be supporting it, it is actually really disappointing that we have now got to a position where we no longer have the kind of cross-party agreement that says this land is so deserving of being protected that it is in schedule 4 and it is not going to be touched, particularly for processes and activities like mining. That consensus has now been broken by the National Party, and here we are putting legislation in place to do everything we can to protect this land, which has high conservation value. We should not have to be here doing this.

The National Party can try to rewrite history once again and say it was only “putting it out there for feedback” around mining on schedule 4 land, but everyone knows that is not true, and everyone knows the only reason that plan did not go ahead had nothing to do with the National Party listening, had nothing to do with the National Party seriously taking on board the concerns of New Zealanders, and had everything to do with 50,000 people marching up Queen Street saying “It is not yours to mine. It is not yours to mine.”

Denis O’Rourke: That’s how they do their consultation.

MOANA MACKEY: Well, exactly, and apparently that is the kind of consultation that the National Party requires.

Hon Trevor Mallard: They have focus groups, as well.

MOANA MACKEY: That is true; Mr Mallard says “They have focus groups, as well.” But the reality was that 50,000 people should not have had to take to the streets of Auckland to protect land that was put into schedule 4 for a reason.

Scott Simpson: It was only 30,000 a few minutes ago.

MOANA MACKEY: Oh, so now apparently there were not enough people marching up the street, and we are undermining even that community activity. That shows the arrogance of the National Party on this particular issue.

National says that this bill is unnecessary, because it has listened. Well, if National has listened, and if we do not have to worry because it is not going to go there ever again, then why not pass the bill into law? Why not pass it into law and say to the people of New Zealand: “We are quite happy that these kinds of decisions have to go before Parliament in order for them to go through.”? Have the actual conviction to put that in place and say that we are prepared to do that, instead of doing it through a process that is far less transparent than coming through this Parliament, and that is not often widely notified. Anyone who has served on the Regulations Review Committee knows you get these complaints that come to the Regulations Review Committee because the Order in Council process has been abused—because it has been used to try to keep controversial issues away from Parliament, and to keep controversial issues away from having to be put to a vote and be debated in the House of Representatives.

If we really have nothing to fear, then what is the harm in sending a strong message to the people of New Zealand that the Government has listened, it does recognise that this land is highly valued by New Zealanders, and it does not have further plans to mine on the schedule 4 land? The reason is that we cannot have confidence that the National Government does not have further plans. There is currently a review of the Crown Minerals Act under way, and schedule 4 land will be part of that. When you have the Minister of Conservation handing over half the responsibility for the protection of the Department of Conservation estate to the Minister of Energy and Resources, that sends you a very, very strong message about how the current National Government views the value of that conservation land. Does the Minister of Energy and Resources not have a conflict of interest when dealing with these applications, given his role in rapidly promoting oil and gas exploration? Just that image of the energy Minister of the time, Gerry Brownlee, sitting there with the diminutive Kate Wilkinson next to him, trying to convince us that somehow she had equal power in this decision, when she was not allowed to speak at the press conference—she did not say anything, and Gerry Brownlee completely took charge—spoke volumes about the priorities of this Government.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Mr Speaker—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The number of calls has expired, but the member in charge of the Crown Minerals (Protection of Public Conservation Land Listed in the Fourth Schedule) Amendment Bill does have a right of reply, should they desire it.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Oh!

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: You should call, then.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Just in case there was a spare slot. It wasn’t a takeover, Eugenie. Better me than a Tory.

EUGENIE SAGE (Green) : I thank members of the Labour Party and the New Zealand First Party for their very considered and comprehensive contributions to the debate on the Crown Minerals (Protection of Public Conservation Land Listed in the Fourth Schedule) Amendment Bill. I thank New Zealand First for outlining the defects of the consultation process in the current Crown Minerals Act, and thank the Labour members for their quite incisive speeches.

Tonight National has cemented its reputation as the Government of environmental destruction. Despite the protestations of the supposed Bluegreens, this Government has done virtually nothing about environmental protection. We have got the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environment Effects) Bill, which members have referred to, yet the defects in that bill are glaringly obvious from the whole raft of submissions that have come in, shredding the bill as it is currently drafted. We have got a review of the Crown Minerals Act, which is promoting the use of New Zealand lands for mineral development. We have got a Government that is bombarding our wild places and natural areas with plans for more resource extraction, more environmental damage, the destruction of whole habitats, and the loss of our children’s and great-grandchildren’s inheritance.

I feel sorry for those members of the Bluegreens who are watching around the country, who have to watch their National MPs embarrass them with their attacks on sound legislation and their attacks on nature—members who do not even know what is in schedule 4, and the fact that it is restricted to our most special natural areas: national parks, marine reserves, wetlands under the Ramsar Convention, some of the Coromandel, and some of our wilderness areas. We live in a smaller and smaller world, a global community, where we depend absolutely and utterly on nature for our economies, for our wealth, for our health, and for our very lives, and yet this Government, on the benches opposite, fails to recognise that. We must be much more careful about how our human activity impacts on nature, and this bill is an effort to secure proper protection for our most precious natural areas so that they have some kind of future. That is what it is all about—whether we devastate and destroy our precious public lands and our marine reserves to allow often multinational companies such as De Beers and such as Newmont Waihī Gold to enrich their shareholders and to impoverish present and future generations.

Tonight we are considering whether to strengthen the legal protection over our greatest natural treasures: our national parks, wilderness areas, forest parks, marine reserves, and Ramsar wetlands. It is these areas that provide us with clean, fresh water, with healthy soils, with flood protection, with food production, with unique biodiversity, and with a flourishing tourism industry. It is this environment that drives our economy, so why not protect our greatest natural resources and also our greatest economic resources? The Greens will, Labour will, and New Zealand First will; this Government will not. This Government fails to understand that New Zealand Aotearoa is a biodiversity hot spot and that it is one of the world’s greatest treasure chests of unusual and fascinating life forms. We have got species that we know and love—the kiwi, the kauri, Powelliphanta, the pekapeka, the native bat, the tuna, and all sorts of animals that this Government is keen to see mined. We have got magnificent landscapes, rich forests, and a unique marine environment. We want to protect these precious places. Over many generations New Zealanders have fought to have them in national parks and protected lands. I commend this bill to the House for the strengthened protection that it will give to those precious places.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) : I move, That the Environment Canterbury (Democracy Restoration) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Local Government and Environment Committee to consider this bill. Can I begin by acknowledging my former parliamentary colleague Brendon Burns, who at the time of the lodging of this bill in the ballot was the member of Parliament for Christchurch Central. He came second in the last election to Nicky Wagner, and so I have the privilege of taking this bill over, and it is now in my name. But I have to acknowledge Brendon, not just for the work he did on this bill but for the work he did on many issues in Canterbury and indeed around the country.

A lot of members of the House will know that sometimes when the nights are getting long and the debates are starting to get a bit short we have a bit of fun over titles of bills. We make up interesting titles for bills that we do not agree with, and use our 5 minutes or 10 minutes of speaking time for that. Some people might read this title, Environment Canterbury (Democracy Restoration) Amendment Bill, and ask whether that is made up, because surely there must be democracy in Canterbury and there could not be a need for democracy restoration in one of the finest provinces in the country.

Let me explain to the House that in March of 2010 the then Minister for the Environment, the Hon Nick Smith, took away the right of Cantabrians to vote for our regional council. It was an extraordinary move, supported by National Party members of Parliament from Canterbury. In that debate we lost our right to vote.

Dr Paul Hutchison: They made a balls-up.

Hon RUTH DYSON: Dr Paul Hutchison says they made a balls-up. Well, of course, there has never ever been a single local authority in the whole history of New Zealand, anywhere in the country, that has not made a mistake or has not gone fast enough, or has not been of the political flavour of the Government of the day. But they do not get scrapped, because what we treasure more than anything in New Zealand is our right to vote. If we end up not getting the person we voted for, we say: “Well, bother, darn, blast, but that’s democracy.” It is sort of the downside of democracy that you do not get who you want, but it is a treasured part of a democratic process.

Our right to vote for our own councillors was taken away, because Nick Smith had been implored by the member of Parliament for Rangitata, the Hon Jo Goodhew, and by the member of Parliament for somewhere south of that, Jacqui Dean, aided and abetted by our mayor, I regret to say, Bob Parker, and the current member of Parliament for Christchurch Central, Nicky Wagner, who all conspired to say: “Let’s get rid of this lot.”

In my view it was about more than just frustration with the council; it was about who controlled access to our water and who controlled the rights to consenting for irrigation. That is the biggest issue in Canterbury. We have the issue of water like no other region has, and Environment Canterbury was concerned about it and was putting in place a water management strategy that would have given our control of water back and taken it out of the hands of irresponsible irrigators. That has all gone now, in the main, other than through the Canterbury Water Management Strategy, which the Environment Canterbury councillors and then chief executive started, before they were sacked.

This is a pretty straightforward bill. It just says, like it or lump it, democracy is the best thing to have, and we should not throw it out lightly.

Su’a William Sio: People have died for it.

Hon RUTH DYSON: People have died for it, quite literally. Thank goodness they have not had to in New Zealand. Thank goodness we have always had better respect for democracy. I think it is about time. We have had a good period now—2 years—with commissioners appointed by the Government. This bill, by the way, is not a criticism of any of them individually. I cannot be bothered with that sort of debate. I have got respect for some of them; I do not agree with others. That is not the point. The issue is not whether we like people or not, it is not whether we are politically on side with them, it is not whether they will do the bidding of the Prime Minister or the Minister for the Environment and let irrigation consents be granted inappropriately, or whether they will be the lapdog of the local member of Parliament. It is whether we, as Cantabrians, have a right to vote for what we see as our elected representative. It does not seem like a very big ask to me.

Just while I am on the topic of commissioners, we did have a bit of entertainment in that Wyatt Creech, former National Cabinet Minister and highly respected person in his own right, had done the review of Environment Canterbury, and Nick Smith came into the House and quoted it in all sorts of bizarre ways—sorry, misquoted it, actually. Wyatt Creech was put in the most humiliating position of having his statements apparently read out. The Minister would open the document and say: “Look what Wyatt Creech just said.”, and when you read it, Wyatt Creech had not said that at all. He did not say anything like that. Poor old Hon Wyatt Creech had his name sullied in the House by Nick Smith.

The next thing we heard was that the Rt Hon Jenny Shipley, former Prime Minister and leader of the National Party, was going to be one of the appointed commissioners. That would have been a significant conflict given her role in Genesis Energy. But after that was in the paper and after a few weeks of speculation, the right honourable former Prime Minister was forced to say: “Well, actually, I can’t take up that job; it would be a bit of a bother.” So there was quite a lot of controversy with Nick Smith misrepresenting what Wyatt Creech had said in his review of Environment Canterbury, and then Jenny Shipley being touted. It was widely known, certainly in Canterbury and Wellington circles, that her name had gone forward to the top of the list to be an Environment Canterbury commissioner, and then it did not come to pass.

I also want to acknowledge the people who were councillors, who were elected councillors at the time of their dismissal. In my view they did a fine job in a very highly politically charged arena. There was a lot of political tension within Environment Canterbury. That is what you get when you vote for people who do not agree with each other.

I think we have a fair bit of that in this House, and I have not noticed many Ministers coming to this House and saying that we argue a lot in Parliament, we do not often reach agreement, therefore we should sack Parliament. But that is actually what they did. There was a lot of tension within Environment Canterbury, but in my view all the sacked councillors have behaved with a lot of dignity and respect for the institution. They have not gone around saying that they did a good job and they want their jobs back. They have said that they were doing their best, there were tensions, and it was difficult. They said that they could not reach agreement all the time and there was a lot of infighting, but that, actually, they were elected to do their jobs. The Canterbury Water Management Strategy—

Jacqui Dean: Couldn’t get a water plan.

Hon RUTH DYSON: —is a good document. I think the member should be very careful mentioning water, given how much she thinks it is dangerous, and given the fact that she wrote to the Hon Jim Anderton when he was a Minister and said: “Please do something about this dangerous substance, which I have been told is so common in New Zealand.”, and that substance turned out to be water—a very risky subject. I watched the Minister table that member’s letter in the House, and I think I will go down to the Table Office soon and retrieve it so that I can re-table it, because it is a new session of Parliament.

Jacqui Dean: Focused on what’s important, as usual.

Hon RUTH DYSON: I guess from the interjections opposite we are getting an indication that this bill may not be supported, which I think is very disappointing, because, as I said at the beginning, what we are asking for is something that every other New Zealander would expect as a matter of right, and that is our right to vote for our regional councillors, whether we get the person we want in the end or not.

I am having a current battle with the Environment Canterbury commissioners. I take the opportunity to place on record that I think their decision to not allow Cantabrians to have existing use rights to put in log burners is a mistake. It is dumb. It is wrong. Actually, I think the elected councillors would have done the same thing, and I would have been arguing with them. So this is not about any current or past battle, or any future battle I might have with the commissioners, or in fact with our elected councillors. This is about a fundamental point of democracy that has been stolen from us in Canterbury in a way that has never been seen before in New Zealand’s proud history of supporting participation and supporting rights. It is our region, it is our water, and it is our vote. All we are asking is for that vote to be given back to us.

NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central) : The National Party will not be supporting this Environment Canterbury (Democracy Restoration) Amendment Bill. The bill calls for an immediate special general election for councillors of Environment Canterbury, to be held within 3 months of the bill becoming law. Although I was a councillor of Environment Canterbury and I understand the council’s and the councillors’ disappointment in being disbanded, I am also impressed by the quality of the work that the new commissioners have done and what they have achieved during their term.

As the Hon Ruth Dyson tells us, the threshold for intervention in the affairs of local government by central government is high. It rarely happens and can be considered only if there is serious failure and/or extreme mismanagement. But there is a history of Government intervention into elected bodies. For example, the then Minister of Health, Helen Clark, sacked the Auckland District Health Board in 1989 with the support, actually, of the National Party at the time. Also, in 2008 the then Minister of Health, David Cunliffe, sacked the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board.

Hon Tony Ryall: Not with our support.

NICKY WAGNER: Not with our support—OK. The Government intervened in the case of Environment Canterbury because the council had failed to effectively manage Canterbury’s fresh water. It is a truly important natural resource, which we all want managed well. Although Environment Canterbury had had 19 years to get a water plan in place, it had failed to do so. It did not have a fully operational regional planning and policy framework for resource management, which meant that any decisions that had been made were very ad hoc, very inconsistent, and very unsatisfactory. There was an enormous gap between what was being done, what needed to be done, and what Environment Canterbury was delivering.

The commissioners have since taken office and, I must say, they are a very impressive group. They are extremely well qualified and well experienced. They have worked together very effectively and have got some really good outcomes for the people of Canterbury. I just want to have a quick look at, and pay tribute to, those commissioners, because they have done a good job. We have got, firstly, Dame Margaret Bazley, who has led the organisation. Of course, she has been ably supported by David Caygill, who is respected by all sides of politics. The other councillors are David Bedford, who is the chair of Enterprise North Canterbury and owns a small vineyard; Donald Couch, who is the Lincoln University pro-chancellor and has a long history of, and experience in, resource management; Tom Lambie, also a councillor from Lincoln University, who has been involved in environmental policy for many years; Peter Skelton, a former Environment Court judge, who has been hugely helpful in developing water policy; and Rex Williams, again a chancellor but this time from Canterbury University, who has also been involved in water conservation. They are a wide, varied, and experienced group.

The commissioners have focused closely on water management. That is the most challenging issue that Canterbury faces. They have worked hard to implement the collaborative Canterbury Water Management Strategy, and they have made real progress. The 10 zones have been established, and the zone committees are under way. Seven zones have completed their draft programmes and are consulting, and several of the earlier programmes are beginning to be actioned. The commissioners at Environment Canterbury have also worked hard to develop collaborative processing in order to clean up Te Waihora, which is Lake Ellesmere. They have worked with central government, with iwi, and with farmers, and they have invested about $12 million towards their clean-up. This is part of National’s $265 million freshwater clean-up across the country, which includes Lake Taupō, the Waikato River, and the Rotorua lakes. National is aware of how important cleaning up the lakes of Canterbury and managing our water well are, and that it is particularly important that Environment Canterbury operates well. Under the commissioners it has made real progress, and I believe they will hand it back to elected members in a far stronger position for the future.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga) : I am pleased to take a call on this bill, the Environment Canterbury (Democracy Restoration) Amendment Bill. At the outset I would like to congratulate my colleague the Hon Ruth Dyson on sponsoring this bill, and I would also like to acknowledge the former member for Christchurch Central Brendon Burns, as has been mentioned previously, for his tireless work while he was the member of Parliament for Christchurch Central and in promoting and advocating the return to democracy in Canterbury.

There has been over 2 years of unelected rule in the Canterbury region with Environment Canterbury—2 years of regional councillors who have been appointed because the previous members of the regional council were, quite literally, all sacked. They were cancelled out, overthrown, and sacked, and that just is absolutely abhorrent to democracy. That is why Labour is supporting this bill. We want to make sure that we can restore democracy for Canterbury and fully constitute elected members to Environment Canterbury.

I had the honour on the eve of the first anniversary of the 22 February quakes to travel through the red zone. When our small group got to Cathedral Square I saw this mound of stones piled up; it must have been around about 2½ metres tall. I asked what it was. Those stones were put in place by the thousands of Cantabrians who had protested the fact that their regional councillors were sacked and overthrown by this Government. That mound of stones withstood the earthquakes—many earthquakes—and they are still standing there as a memorial to the fact that the wishes of the Canterbury ratepayers were totally bulldozed by this Government and the fact that it installed its own commissioners and put in place an unelected group of people to run Environment Canterbury. Those stones, which were drawn from all of the great awa—the great rivers—of the Canterbury region, will still stand there, and they will remain there until we get a democratically elected group of regional councillors, rightly voted in by the people, to actually continue the running of Environment Canterbury.

Democracy was cancelled out by this Government. It has been for over 2 years—

Dr David Clark: Democracy killers.

RINO TIRIKATENE: —absolutely—and why? Well, the simple reason is, if we cut to the chase, that this was all about power politics, so the National Government could facilitate the deals to get its farming mates the rights to the water that they have craved. Sure, the former elected Environment Canterbury had its issues, but the fact is it was highly passionate about the fact of the water management in the Canterbury region. What did this Government do? It saw it as its opportunity to get rid of the elected regional councillors so that it could actually put in place a water management scheme that, incidentally, will be benefiting a lot of the supporters of this National Government.

I would like to also mention the commissioners. I have got nothing against the commissioners who have been installed into Environment Canterbury. I have been to various hui, and I do like to commend Environment Canterbury for the initiatives around Lake Te Waihora and the joint governance—co-governance—arrangement between Ngāi Tahu, the Te Waihora management board, and Environment Canterbury in relation to the clean-up of Lake Te Waihora. That initiative is to be commended, but those initiatives must be entered into with the iwi by elected representatives from the regional council. So I would just like to once again endorse this bill. We are supporting it, and I would like to encourage members on the other side of this House to support it, too. I would like to once again commend the Hon Ruth Dyson.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) : The Government does not support this member’s bill in the name of Ruth Dyson, the Environment Canterbury (Democracy Restoration) Amendment Bill. The people of Christchurch were badly let down by Environment Canterbury. The problem of water allocation around the area that was administered by Environment Canterbury was that we had a highly contested resource, which in many parts was overallocated already, with a high demand for more allocation. Environment Canterbury utterly failed in its duties to meet its responsibilities, so much so that the Minister for the Environment at the time, Nick Smith, made the wise and brave decision to appoint commissioners in its stead.

Environment Canterbury had 19 years to develop a water plan and it did not do that. What was happening in Canterbury was that water allocation decisions were being made in a policy vacuum. A policy vacuum is not a good method to deal with an important resource. I am mindful of the debate in the previous bill, the Crown Minerals (Protection of Public Conservation Land Listed in the Fourth Schedule) Amendment Bill, where members across the House were decrying the use of schedule 4 land, potentially, for mining. They seemed to be fixated on bringing in more regulation and legislation around that, yet they seemed to be perfectly comfortable with the fact that there was a policy vacuum in Environment Canterbury at the time, which meant that water allocation was being done in a haphazard and unplanned way. There is a bit of an irony in there, which I suspect is lost on members across the House.

As the constituency member of Parliament with responsibilities from Geraldine south down to the Waitaki River, I had a number of my constituents who were either looking to renew their water allocation permits or going for new water allocation permits, and who were suffering from an ongoing battle of cost. They would wait for years for Environment Canterbury to deal with their allocation requests, or, indeed, any form of trouble or complaint they had. They would then come to me. Of course I would ring Environment Canterbury or I would write to Environment Canterbury, and I, too, experienced the frustration of trying to get a decent level of service out of Environment Canterbury. So it was those failures—those failures of not doing its job properly—that led Nick Smith to appoint commissioners to Environment Canterbury, and since then I am happy to say that the complaints have all but dried up.

Of course, no farmer will ever be completely happy with their regional council; that is a bit of a given. But I have to say that the performance of the commissioners has been outstanding. We now have a lot of progress on water management strategy. In fact, more progress had been made, not only by the Environment Canterbury commissioners but also by this National Government, in 3 years than was made in the entire 9 years of the previous Labour Government, when it had its much-vaunted water plan of action, which in effect became the water plan of inaction. Well, I have to say that since that time a lot of progress has been made to the benefit of the people of Canterbury, and that is something that I suspect is lost on those members opposite, who are so fixated that they cannot see the wood for the trees. National opposes this member’s bill.

EUGENIE SAGE (Green) : I am pleased to speak in support of the Environment Canterbury (Democracy Restoration) Amendment Bill, which the Green Party will be supporting, because the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Act was very bad law. Canterbury University law professor Philip Joseph said that the Act—which was passed under urgency, in the dead of night, with no opportunity for public scrutiny, no going before a select committee, and no submissions—breached several principles of law, that it is “constitutionally repugnant”, contains “elements of subterfuge”, and is a “constitutional affront”. And as Mr Joseph said in an article in the New Zealand Law Journal: “Representative democracy and independent courts are the twin pillars of the legal system. The abrogation or suspension of the former, even at local government level, has menacing implications.” As he pointed out, electors have resisted the term of this Parliament being extended, and yet that Act put forward no elections for the regional council for more than 3 years, and we still do not have the certainty of when any elections will occur—if they will occur.

That Act was very bad because it was also retrospective. It suspended the ability of the Environment Court to consider the Hurunui water conservation order and the appeals on that order. It interfered with water conservation orders to remove the regulatory roadblocks to irrigation, which is probably why the member for Waitaki’s constituents favoured it.

It has been very disappointing listening to some of the comments from the National members who perpetuate the inaccuracies and the myths that the former Minister of Local Government Rodney Hide and former Minister for the Environment Nick Smith put about that Environment Canterbury had no plan for water. As former judge the Hon Professor Skelton noted soon after becoming a commissioner, Environment Canterbury did have a plan for water; it was the proposed natural resources regional plan. It had been notified back in 2004, submissions were held on it, and it was ready for decisions to be issued in August 2010. National’s Act and the appointment of commissioners, in fact, delayed the notification of decisions on that plan.

The National Government did not sack the Ministry for the Environment. The defects in the Ministry for the Environment and the fact that there was no National Policy Statement on Freshwater Management until very recently were not seen as hanging offences in the same way that the National Government categorised Environment Canterbury. This bill goes a small way to restoring some of the democracy that we need in Canterbury by proposing that there be elections called.

As Rino Tirikatene noted, the cairn—which thousands of Cantabrians erected on a very bleak June winter day, in recognition that we need democracy in Canterbury and in opposition to the actions of the National Government in making it much easier to tamper with water conservation orders for irrigators to access our rivers—still stands as a memorial to the very bad law that the National Government introduced to get rid of regional democracy. National’s Act breached one of the fundamental constitutional principles that there should be no taxation without representation. So we have the Environment Canterbury commissioners putting out for submissions their long-term plan, which proposes that $79 million be raised in targeted rates and general rates, yet there has been no opportunity for elected representatives to decide on how those rates’ revenues should be spent. It is being decided by commissioners without any elected representatives, and that is bad. This bill goes some way to redressing that by providing for elections in Canterbury. The Green Party supports this bill.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) : New Zealand First will support this Environment Canterbury (Democracy Restoration) Amendment Bill, but, in saying so, we declare one significant reservation. So I guess that although we do support the bill, we stand somewhere between the National Party’s position and that of the other side of the House.

Primarily, it is the interests of democracy that should be the main consideration, and although one may understand the reasons why the commissioners were appointed, which is one thing, it is also necessary, which is the other thing, that those commissioners should be decommissioned and democracy restored as soon as practicable. That is what New Zealanders and democracy demand. There is a need for public support for governance at all levels, including regional councils, and I would have to say that at the present time the commissioners seem rather remote to Canterbury people, and are really not connecting closely to them. That is because, of course, they were not elected by them, they are not directly accountable, and that is not good for community governance.

I would have to say, however, that there were grounds for appointing the commissioners, and I say that sadly. The main reason was progress with water issues. There was a need for a better planning process in relation to water issues by Environment Canterbury, as it was elected, and I for one was not satisfied with the progress that was being made. I say that without any disrespect to the councillors who were elected. I think they did their very best, I think they were competent, and I think they did make some progress, but not enough. I think the main problem, actually, was the support—or lack of it—within Environment Canterbury itself.

That then put aside, it is now certain that the commissioners are no longer needed and should be dispensed with, and elections should be held as soon as possible. The Canterbury Water Management Strategy is well advanced, the water issues are beginning to settle down, and there is a new chief executive officer and management in place in Environment Canterbury. The Central Plains Water consents—and I will declare an interest, in that I have been, and still am, the chair of the Central Plains Water Trust—have been dealt with, mainly through negotiation and settlement. That is also settling down, and there is an accord on Te Waihora. So a lot has been done and a lot has been achieved. I just do not see that there is any longer any need for the commissioners to continue, so there is a need for elections.

I would have to add that, of course, the earthquake has eroded confidence in Canterbury in many things, and that people—and you will understand this—are not feeling great about the whole situation. There is a need not only to restore Christchurch physically but also to restore its communities and its democracy, and all those things really hang together. The real questions, and this is the reservation for New Zealand First, are when and what? And 2013 would appear, on the surface, to be too late. However, if, as we would wish to see, there should be some discussion about whether a unitary authority should be established in Canterbury combining the city council and the regional council, and the same for the other district authorities, then that is something that we think deserves consideration. If people support it, then we will support them on that. If the people do not support it following comprehensive consultation, then that is fine by us as well, because, as I said at the beginning, democracy is the primary consideration, and those options should be put before them.

However, in circumstances where the Government has taken no action whatsoever on these issues despite calls to give them some thought, then we have no choice but to look at this bill as it is in the current circumstances. And in those circumstances we must support it, because, as I have said a couple of times already, democracy is the primary consideration and everything else is secondary. New Zealand First will, accordingly, support the bill.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) : I rise also to support the Environment Canterbury (Democracy Restoration) Amendment Bill. It was originally in the name of my former colleague Brendon Burns, who worked tirelessly on behalf of not only his constituents in Christchurch Central at the time but also the people of Canterbury in respect of water issues. Water issues are, of course, fundamental to Environment Canterbury’s role. It is not the only role that Environment Canterbury undertakes, but it is an extremely important role, as we have heard in this House already.

I want to focus initially on the report that led to the removal of democratic governance in the region. I think it is important for us to realise that the Government actually intervened in the local government process. It intervened in the process in order to remove a layer of democratic governance that existed in our region. The justification for such a strong intervention and such an undermining of something that is absolutely fundamental in terms of our commitment to civil and political rights in this country was based on a report. That report had two distinct parts to it. One part was clearly a political report. It was politically motivated, it was politically inspired, and it was designed to give an answer to a problem that had already had a resolution decided by the Government of the day. The Government had decided what it wanted, and this part of the report was written specifically to achieve that desired outcome, which was the removal of the democratically elected councillors of Environment Canterbury.

The second report, the objective part of the report, did acknowledge that there had been problems in the past and identified what those problems were, but that part of the report made it absolutely crystal clear that all of those issues were being addressed—every single one of them. They were being addressed in such a way that would give any Government confidence that all it had to do was to allow time for those particular measures that had been put in place to reach fruition, and they would achieve the objective that it said it had set in reviewing the operation of Environment Canterbury. That, to me, was what was fundamentally wrong with the whole process. The Government actually designed a report with a political input and an objective input, but it ignored the objective input and just chose the political input, which actually gave it the result it had already decided on. It had already made up its mind that Environment Canterbury’s elected representatives would go and that they would be replaced by commissioners, and those commissioners were given a task that was actually made much easier as a result of the work that had been going on to resolve some of the problems of the past. They were problems of the past. They were certainly being addressed at the time.

There was no basis for the sacking of Environment Canterbury when the National Government of the day undertook that task, and there is no justification today for the Government to vote against this bill. Christchurch is crying out for the restoration of local democracy, and what we have heard today is a Minister of this Government stand in this House and not deny—which is essentially confirming the fact—that the next layer of democratically elected governance in our city is also on the chopping-block. But it will not go as far as it has gone with Environment Canterbury; it will just strip it of its core function. The Christchurch City Council will lose all of its planning function for the central business district as part of the recovery of our city. I am outraged by this Government going down that track and to find that the Government here tonight will not vote for the restoration of democracy in the region. We know that the Government is planning to remove that vestige of democracy that remains in Christchurch through the core function of the Christchurch City Council. It is an outrage.

PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) : I rise to speak against this bill, the Environment Canterbury (Democracy Restoration) Amendment Bill, I am sorry to say. The threshold for intervention in the affairs of local government is necessarily very high and very rare. It is considered only at times of serious failure and mismanagement, and that indeed is what we had with Environment Canterbury, over 19 years, not successfully coming up with a water plan. Canterbury’s 10 mayors—it is worth remembering 10 mayors and councils were unanimous in their support for the findings of the review group. The Government intervened because the council had failed to effectively manage Canterbury’s fresh water, which is a crucial resource. Let us not forget that. It did not have a fully operative regional planning and policy framework in place for resource management, and that resulted in an ad hoc and unsatisfactory arrangement for managing fresh water. There was an enormous and unprecedented gap between what needed to be done to effectively manage Canterbury’s fresh water and Environment Canterbury’s ability to do so.

It was on that basis that the Government made this rather unusual step to move as we did and put in those three commissioners. Dame Margaret Bazley is arguably New Zealand’s most respected public servant and problem solver, and she has shown over the last year the wealth of experience in management and governance that she has in large organisations. David Caygill is, of course, an ex-colleague of members on the other side of the House. David Bedford is the chair of Enterprise North Canterbury. What progress they have made over the course of a year! It has been astonishing. The people of Canterbury had been let down by Environment Canterbury, and now, after just 1 year, the commissioners have put a plan in place. We are very proud, as the National Government, to have been able to take action and to deliver on a promise to fast track a water plan for Canterbury.

The completion of the Canterbury natural resources regional plan last year was a major step forward for Canterbury, meaning that it now has an operational water plan. It is all the more important, after the devastating earthquakes that we had, that we have a guide in place that will help Canterbury’s economic recovery by developing the region’s natural resources while protecting our natural environment. The plan covers, as we have seen, water quality and quantity, the beds and margins of lakes, rivers, and wetlands, groundwater, and soil conservation. It involves different trade-offs between the environment and development. It will be refined in a way that is responsive to the zone committees’ work under the Canterbury Water Management Strategy.

Calling for an election now, as this bill indicates, would simply be going back to the beginning again. If regional elections had been the answer, Canterbury would not have had a water problem such as it had for so long. So National tackled a dysfunctional regional council and completed a resource plan. I am very pleased that we have also adopted a good clean-up plan for Te Waihora / Lake Ellesmere, and that we have advanced the work on the water management strategy.

Just briefly, I can update the House on progress on that Canterbury Water Management Strategy. It is well advanced, with all 10 zone committees and the regional committee appointed. All implementation programmes are either developed, or have been received by the regional council and relevant territorial authorities and are out for consultation. Seven zones have issued their draft reports for consultation. Some of the earlier programmes are now being actioned. Finally, the collaborative model of the 10 zone committees and the regional committee has proven to be very effective.

I oppose this bill. We think the approach that has been taken by National to rein in what was a dysfunctional council and put in commissioners has worked very effectively and will continue to do so for the interim period. Thank you.

JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) : It is a pleasure to rise and speak on this bill, the Environment Canterbury (Democracy Restoration) Amendment Bill. I would just like to say that there is a very high threshold that has to apply before a Government will intervene, as Helen Clark did, I recall, in Auckland and as I think David Cunliffe did 3 or 4 years ago in Central Hawke’s Bay. So there is plenty of precedent for what the National Government did in this matter.

There is a connection back into my electorate in the Wairarapa, because one of our companies in Masterton was operating for some years in an arrangement with a wholly owned subsidiary of Environment Canterbury. It was a company called Target Pest, and it was wholly owned by Environment Canterbury—by the local authority. It went into receivership owing more than $2 million. The chief executive of Environment Canterbury had made it clear in writing to the people who suffered the problem of their $2 million loss that, in fact, because this was a local government - owned entity, its bills would be paid by the Government. So although there was concern on the part of people owed money by Target Pest, they were led to believe—wrongly, I might add—by the officials employed by Environment Canterbury that their debt would be settled. It was not.

One of my constituents has lost his house, he has lost his beach house, and in the last 4 or 5 months he has lost his whole business because of the activities of the irresponsible management of the Environment Canterbury council, ably led by Sir Kerry Burke. Some members of this House may recall that I was so furious about this problem that I asked for the Government to remove his knighthood. Certainly he should have given it back, because his stewardship of that arrangement was absolutely outrageous. Not one of the creditors has had a cent back of that $2 million—not one. So I absolutely believe that the Government’s intervention in the affairs of Environment Canterbury was appropriate, and the Government’s intervention was backed at that point by the mayors of the 10 local councils.

Aware of this problem in Canterbury, and the Wairarapa connection, I am particularly delighted that Dame Margaret Bazley was appointed to sort this issue out, because she is, I think, without a doubt New Zealand’s greatest living, most competent public servant. She is certainly very, very highly respected and is a brilliant problem solver. She brings huge experience across a wide variety of management roles in government. She has specialist skills and she is particularly good on organisational and change management. She has also got a huge history of working with Māori communities at whānau, hapū, and iwi level. As well as that, we have also got David Caygill, Helen Clark’s first deputy leader, involved in the management of the council arrangements. I would like the House to note that for 20 years Environment Canterbury could not produce a water plan. Dame Margaret had one on the table in 12 months. I think that the people of Canterbury are being particularly well served by the present arrangement.

If you look at the game playing that is going on in the Wellington region, with various mayors and heads of regional councils all jockeying for position to come out top of the pile in some sort of council reorganisation, I think the people of Canterbury are far better served by this arrangement than by what this bill proposes, which is a return to democracy where a bunch of local people are going to be arguing with each other to be the chief factotums. What we need in Canterbury at the moment is strong, stable leadership in the wake of the earthquake to move that part of New Zealand on. Thank you.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) : Can I first of all acknowledge and thank all the members who have contributed, and, obviously, those who have indicated their party’s support for my bill, the Environment Canterbury (Democracy Restoration) Amendment Bill, which calls for the restoration of democracy in Canterbury. As I said at the beginning, it is not a big ask. It is what every other person, every other citizen, in the rest of our country has, and that is the ability to vote in an open election for the candidate of their choice to run their local authority—in this case Environment Canterbury, our regional council. We lost that right to vote in March 2010.

My colleague Lianne Dalziel explained the deception that had been brought into this House, very clearly. The report that was presented to the Government by the Hon Wyatt Creech was clearly a report of two halves. One half was written by Wyatt Creech and had a very open style about it. It contained the concerns, the recommendations, and his response to the recommendations. He indicated his high level of satisfaction with the undertakings and work that Environment Canterbury had done in order to address some of the report’s concerns. The second part was a predetermined section written to achieve what the Government wanted, and that was to get rid of Environment Canterbury, which was blocking what the Prime Minister wanted, and that was wholesale irrigation in parts of Canterbury where that irrigation is very contentious.

I deeply regret the fact that people like John Hayes, who is from Wairarapa, thought it was OK to come into this House and say what Canterbury needs. He is not from Canterbury, and it is not up to him to determine what we need. It is not up to the rest of the members of the Government to determine what we need. We have the right to vote for whom we want, whether people like it or not. That is what happens in a democracy. Some people win. Some people lose.

Hon Christopher Finlayson: She’s not from Canterbury. She’s from Kilbirnie.

Hon RUTH DYSON: We do not always like the outcomes; we just like the process of democracy. Mr Finlayson can chip away, but I am sure that he as Attorney-General would value more than anyone the precious gift we have in New Zealand of democracy. The National Government intervened just over 2 years ago to take away that right to vote. That is all that my bill does; it asks Parliament to restore Cantabrians’ right to vote for their regional council.

I want to acknowledge the member for Christchurch Central at the time, Brendon Burns, my former colleague and long-time friend and future friend, who introduced this bill originally. He put it in the ballot and he was fortunate enough to have it drawn out, but he did not win the election, so the bill has been transferred to my name.

I want to acknowledge the councillors who worked so hard as elected representatives, despite the political differences I had with some of them and the political affiliations I shared with others. They actually prepared the Canterbury Water Management Strategy, which the National members were praising Margaret Bazley for introducing. Actually, I went to several briefings about the Canterbury Water Management Strategy and the structure and the process for a shared view on water management in Canterbury, long before Nick Smith decided to sack the council. Margaret Bazley has more integrity than to claim credit for that. If she was in this House, she would say that what John Hayes, Jacqui Dean, and Nicky Wagner said was not correct. I know her to be a woman of very high integrity. She would have corrected them because she was not responsible for that. That work was undertaken by elected representatives and the chief executive and staff at the time.

When this outrageous breach of our democratic right was undertaken, thousands and thousands of Cantabrians protested on the streets. We erected the cairn of stones from the Waimakariri River that my colleague Rino Tirakatene referred to earlier. It is just in front of the cathedral. Not much else has survived around that neck of the woods. Most of it is in rubble. But we put there a cairn of rocks, and we said at the time that those rocks will stay in that place until Cantabrians have their right to a democratic vote restored. Through our 10,000 or more earthquakes, that cairn of rocks has stood strong. That should be a bit of a message to this House: even mother Nature cannot destroy our passion and desire to have our democratic right to vote for our regional councillors restored. We now know that Gerry Brownlee’s next plot is to strip some core functions from the Christchurch City Council, and, again, I say that is not what we need in Canterbury. What we need is the support of Parliament to get on with the job, which we try to do to our best ability but do not always achieve. Certainly, at the very minimum, we need to have our right to have our vote for our regional council restored.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) : Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Kia ora tātou katoa. I move, That the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. It is my intention that the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill be considered by the Commerce Committee in time.

Umpteen pieces of research tell us that problem gambling can have devastating consequences on individuals and whānau. Those consequences can be demonstrated in relationship breakdowns, financial ruin, psychological distress, criminal offending, imprisonment, and suicide. So you could say that it severely compromises the potential of whānau. The Māori Party takes this issue really seriously, so when we had the opportunity to enter into a relationship agreement with the National Government we made social hazards part of our negotiations. So we are really thrilled that National agreed to support this bill’s referral to the select committee, and we hope that it will do so through subsequent phases.

Actually, I am looking forward to wholesale support across the House for this bill. The inquiries and the support provided by members of the House across the parties indicate that there are matters to be addressed with pokies, and having the bill go to the select committee will no doubt allow that discussion to be opened up. Sure, there might be some things that need some tweaking, but let us have the submissions and let us have the debate.

I am clear that it is not likely that we will get rid of pokie machines altogether. People do, however, recognise that something needs to be done about pokies to address the harm caused by those machines. But it seems to be counterbalanced by those who run the “Who is going to pay for the sports club uniforms?” argument or, perhaps, the “Who will sponsor the kapahaka competition?” argument. People are concerned that they may not get the money stream, and I understand that. But we are trying to focus on the harm, and that is why we have termed the bill the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill.

This bill proposes a law change that would enable local authorities in consultation with their communities to reduce the number of pokie machines in their districts. The purpose of the bill is to provide local communities with more power to determine where pokie machines may be sited and how the proceeds can be distributed. The venues for electronic gambling machines tend to be overly represented in lower-income communities and town centres. Māori and Pasifika populations are effectively being disproportionately targeted and even severely harmed by them. This bill seeks to overcome these inequities of harm in the location and excessive numbers of pokie machines by enabling local authorities in consultation with their communities to reduce the number of pokie machines in, or even eliminate them from, those suburbs and towns where they are particularly concentrated or are doing particular harm.

It also changes the responsibility for distributing pokie funds and provides an informed and democratically accountable distribution method. In doing so, we hope to end the inefficiencies, lack of transparency, risks of unethical behaviour, and failure to appreciate and respond to the greatest needs of particular geographical and ethnic communities in the distribution of the community benefit funds from pokies. To take money out of the Kawerau community, for example, and distribute it in Hamilton, or Christchurch, is wrong, and we want to address that. The bill also proposes to give gamblers more ability to limit and control their own gambling behaviour through player tracking devices and pre-commit cards.

I suppose the background to a lot of this discussion for us as the Māori Party is that tangata whenua have no history of traditional concepts of gambling. Indeed, there is no word for it in the Māori language. David Grant has described the introduction of gambling by the new settlers as “cultural baggage”, baggage that has been disproportionately associated with Māori. So here we are today recognising that Māori are two to three times more at risk of problem and pathological gambling than non-Māori, and that Māori youth are six times as likely as non-Māori to develop gambling problems. So instead of leading to self-determination, gambling creates more and more reliance on gaming machines being the road out of the poverty trap that many find themselves in. But that, unfortunately, is a dream. I mean, even those in the gambling industry openly say the machines are there to take your money. One might win now and again, and it is the belief that it will happen again and again that feeds the addiction.

If we take into account the ripple effect of each individual problem gambler having a direct impact on at least five people, we are looking at close to 250,000 people adversely affected by Māori problem-gambling. The Māori Party has consistently described the harm associated with gambling in the terms of Dr Lorna Dyall, who has described it as a social hazard. Dr Dyall compared the intervention of games such as Risk or Powerball as on a par with the introduction of any biological or chemical hazards that are likely to place people at risk or in danger of loss or injury. She describes these games of chance as social hazards that require the same extent of licensing, management, monitoring, and ongoing research to assess the full social, economic, and cultural impacts. So the Māori Party has made changes with regard to the work on the tobacco reform. We are looking at alcohol overuse, particularly amongst Māori communities, and tonight we want to focus on gambling harm.

This bill proposes to do so in five ways. Firstly, this bill responds to the public sentiment and evidence that there are already too many pokies and venues in some locations and districts by adding public sentiment and evidence of harm to the major criteria to be applied in developing a territorial authority’s gambling venue policy. It empowers local authorities, after consulting the community and affected operators, to eliminate or reduce the number of pokie machines and venues in particular suburbs or towns where public sentiment or evidence of harm justifies this.

Secondly, it cuts out racing and racing stake money as an authorised “charitable” purpose that is inconsistent with the community benefit tenor of the rest of the principal Act. Special consideration for this industry alone should not continue when community and iwi organisations are so desperately short of funding.

Thirdly, it requires the distribution of proceeds to be carried out primarily for the benefit of community, sporting, and social service organisations operating within, and for the benefit of, the geographic community in which the venue is located. It specifically requires all pokie-machine trusts, corporate societies, and other distributors of the proceeds of gambling machines to return at least 80 percent of these funds generated by gamblers’ losses on local pokie machines back into the charitable organisations that are meeting the priority needs in the same local authority area as the venue, and within the same local authority ward, local board subdivision, or community board area where such subdivisions exist.

Fourthly, this bill also phases out the pokie trusts, or corporate societies, as the distributors of community benefit money from pokie machines. Within a year’s time it passes over responsibility for those distributions to special committees of local authorities with a majority of representation from community organisations. They are sort of modelled on the Creative New Zealand creative communities fund committees and the former Hillary Commission local committees. I might say that this section has been a major discussion point in some submissions to me from some trusts that believe that they are doing things by the book, if you like, but even they admit that not everything is as it should be. So I look forward to the ideas from the industry.

Fifthly, gamblers who are having problems with their behaviour when using pokie machines frequently have their problems exacerbated by losing track of the amount of losses or the passage of time. Gamblers could more often be able to manage their gambling if pokie-machine venue operators were obliged to keep track of each gambler’s overall losses and time spent gambling through using common technological devices like player tracking systems. If, in addition, gamblers were equipped with pre-commit cards in which gamblers pre-set, away from the gambling venue, limits on the amount of losses and time spent gambling on pokie machines, then they could restore control over their own behaviour and greatly reduce the problems they could face from pokie gambling. This bill proposes making such player tracking devices and pre-commit cards a required condition of a pokie-machine venue operator’s licence as issued by the Secretary for Internal Affairs.

Finally, there is no dispute over the fact that gambling is extremely destructive to individuals, whānau, and communities in the way in which it impacts on the quality of life of whānau and inhibits their capacity to—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. His time has expired.

MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) : The National Party will be supporting this Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill at its first reading and referral to the select committee. It does so for two reasons. Firstly, the support for the referral of this bill to the select committee is part of the National Party’s confidence and supply agreement with the Māori Party, and I think this reflects very well the sorts of cooperative relationships that can not only be agreed on but also honoured in good coalition Governments. I contrast that with some of the agreements not met in the latter stages of the Labour Government, including that with the United Future party. I think had the Hon Peter Dunne been here, he would be nodding sagely at the recollection of an agreement made with him—in successive Parliaments—by the Labour Government over issues in respect of support for medical insurance. Not only was it not honoured by that Government but also by the time David Cunliffe became the Minister of Health, he was not even aware of it. So I am very pleased to say that within 4 months of the agreement being reached, this bill can have its first reading and be referred to the Commerce Committee where it will get, I think, a very fair hearing. Indeed, I am quite confident that the committee will get plenty of submissions on the issue.

The second reason the National Party will be supporting this bill at its first reading is that we share the very grave concerns that the Māori Party has and that the member introducing the bill, Te Ururoa Flavell, has about the effects that problem gambling has on society. The goal that this bill has is harm minimisation, and I applaud those efforts. It is a continuation of the very active work that the Māori Party has been doing in respect of harm minimisation for its people. As the member mentioned, I think the very best example of that over the last 3 years has been the excellent efforts by the Associate Minister of Health the Hon Tariana Turia to increase the excise on tobacco and to further denormalise tobacco in our lives. The statistics, particularly around young Māori, are extremely encouraging. I do hope that regardless of the future of this bill, and that with the support of the Māori Party, the Government can continue to reduce harm and the problems that gambling can cause for our society.

I want to focus on a couple of issues in respect of the bill, and, in particular, the focus that it has on racing, and, in particular, racing stake money. The member Mr Flavell quite rightly points out that there is some pokie money that does go to support the racing industry. I think he used the words “special consideration” for that industry, and I am not quite sure I would concur that the racing industry necessarily has special consideration. I have certainly received plenty of submissions in advance of the first reading of this bill from people who are involved in the industry in one way or another. I know that the Minister for Racing, the Hon Nathan Guy, has some concerns not only about what this bill could do to the racing industry and the estimated $6 million to $8 million a year that is provided for stakes but also about infrastructure development on courses right up and down the country. I think I would make two comments about that.

Firstly, the popular perception of the racing industry is of something that is extremely glamorous—the Ellerslies, the Addingtons, and the Wellington Cup day at Trentham, where we get on our glad rags, our hats, our fascinators, and out we go. The perception of the racing industry is that it is an elitist sport, the sport of kings, as they call it. But I think the reality is something different. From a very young age my annual summer holidays in Central Otago were always punctuated by a trip to, usually, the trots at the Ōmākau races, about 40 kilometres east of Alexandra. It is a fantastic day out that I have continued with my own children, not only there but also at the Cromwell races. I can tell you that there is not a fascinator to be seen anywhere on that racecourse. It is a terrific community day, and one where, I guess, the racing is almost incidental to the social connection that is so very important to those communities. These events have, over the last 20 years or so, gone through something of a significant slump in terms of their support by numbers and the amount of financial support that is provided to them. Racing is by no means at that grassroots level an industry that meets the reality—it does not meet the perception—of the Ellerslies and the Trenthams.

The second thing I would say about that is up until about 20 years ago, indeed racing was probably the only sport one could bet on, and the TAB was there—those smoky High Street agencies—for the sole purpose of betting on horses. Of course, we know that that is quite different from the current-day reality, where there are a number of sports, a plethora of sports, that one could bet on: rugby, rugby league, tennis, cricket, and so on. So if one separates the betting aspect of racing from the community and sporting aspect of racing, one could argue, and indeed many have, that race day is a sport like going to the Forsyth Barr Stadium in Dunedin or the Westpac Stadium here in Wellington, and that one could also bet on the outcome of the event. I think that is analogous—much more analogous these days than it was in times past.

So I would question the description of the so-called special consideration of the racing industry. I am quite sure that because the racing industry is such a large employer in many parts of the country—some 50,000 people earn a part-time or full-time income from the racing industry—we will hear many submissions from those involved in it, and in other sporting codes for that matter. I am sure the Government will look forward to the submissions to, and the deliberation by, the committee on those issues.

But I do want to emphasise that gambling is a very important issue. Some aspects of the bill, I think, are probably already able to be done, but I think that is going to be for the Commerce Committee’s examination of the bill in terms of what provisions already exist for local communities to have more say over where those proceeds are spent, which organisations can benefit from them, and also the number of machines that are in local communities. I am no expert on this, but I do think there are some provisions that already enable that. Although we are by no means anywhere near looking at the outcome of, say, Skycity’s proposal, the Prime Minister did mention in answer to an oral question yesterday that notwithstanding that, the number of pokie machines in Auckland has reduced, I think he said, from about 5,100 to 4,200—a nearly 20 percent reduction. So it is already going down; it is going down under the existing provisions that exist.

That said, I think there are many very worthy elements to this bill. I look forward to following the submission and deliberation process with interest. I am very pleased to say that National will support this bill at the first reading.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) : Can I acknowledge the member who has just resumed his seat, Michael Woodhouse, and say that I think that he canvassed the wide spectrum of tensions within this bill, the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill, in a very considered way, and I think that is the sort of debate that is going to happen at the Commerce Committee. I do not think there is a single person in this House who does not share the concern of the member who has introduced the bill in relation to the impact of problem gambling that we have in New Zealand. We have seen some moves in our Parliament to try to reduce that social harm, and this is a further one in that direction.

I am a little surprised that the National Party did agree to the legislation, which is clearly only going as far as the select committee with the support of the National Party. It does, for me, indicate a bit of a conflict, when National is going to be supporting Te Ururoa Flavell’s member’s bill’s referral to the select committee. We will hear from the problem-gambling groups around the country that are trying to deal with the huge distress and dysfunction caused by people who have problem gambling. The devastation that it causes to families is something that all New Zealanders would seek to avoid. But, at the same time, the National Party is going to be whipped—whipped; not even a conscience vote—into supporting the dodgy deal that gives Skycity a further 500 pokie machines, as if they are not related. I think there is a small amount of tension there, and I think the rest of the country will find it very puzzling to try to reconcile those two conflicting points of view.

The other puzzle that I have is that when you look at the Order Paper that we have got before us today, there is at No. 49 the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2). That was reported back from the Government Administration Committee, according to the parliamentary records, on 12 May 2009—

Sue Moroney: 2009?

Hon RUTH DYSON: It was 2009, and now it is 2012. It is nearly the third anniversary. It is just weeks away from the third anniversary of the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2) being reported back to Parliament. It is in the name of the Hon Chris Tremain. Why is it not up on the Order Paper? If there is such a major concern about the social hazard, as was described by the member whose name is on this legislation, why is the Government not doing something about it? We have a bill, it has been to select committee, it is back before the House, and we could be progressing it. I am sure it would get a huge amount of support. Perhaps that would be too blindingly obvious in the face of the dodgy deal with Skycity, as opposed to supporting a member’s bill through to the select committee.

I think the other point that Michael Woodhouse raised in his contribution was the issue of the racing industry and racing stake money, and he clearly had the briefing very well rehearsed, because that is the same briefing that has been given around the country, and it is the right and proper process for the industry to do that. I do not actually think that the only issue to be considered—but I do think it is one to be considered—is the differences in the various racing organisations around the country, because that is a big issue to be considered, and the racing industry has made that point. But the concern that is addressed in the bill is the fact that racing and racing stake money are regarded as having a charitable purpose, and I think that disconnect between them being recognised as having a charitable purpose and the clear outcome of racing is the point that the member is making in his bill, but no doubt we will have that. I think we will have a lot of tension around that.

It does, for me, raise a much more important issue, and it is a further tension that is outlined in the bill, and I think it is one that this Parliament has to come to terms with sooner or later. The member himself mentioned it. He asked why we should be giving money to racing and pokie money to racing stake money when we have got community and iwi organisations who are desperately short of funding. The bigger question, from my point of view, is how do we fund social-good activity in our community, how do we resource that activity, without being dependent on pokie machines? That is the nub of the question. Let us not divide our communities, particularly between racing and other activities, because it gets us off the primary purpose of the debate, which is about what we want in our society, what we want in our communities, and how we ensure that the organisations we entrust to perform or support those activities are able to do so without resorting to gambling money. We as a society have moved to a high level of dependency and we must have the strength to break that dependency if we are going to move, at the same time, away from the harm that problem gambling causes to our communities. They are connected actions, and I would urge the member who introduced the bill to try to expand the debate at the select committee so that we do not end up just with racing versus the rest.

TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) : It gives me pleasure to rise and speak on this bill, the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill. Can I say to the mover of this bill, Mr Flavell, that this is a very good piece of legislation. I want to commend him for the hard work he has put into drawing it up, and for the diligence he has shown, over more than a year since it came out of the ballot, in working this through, and getting it on the Table for us here today to consider. Can I say to the last speaker that that was one of the worst speeches I have heard in this House. Mr Prasad, can I say to you that—

Michael Woodhouse: It was Ruth Dyson, wasn’t it?

TODD McCLAY: It was Mrs Dyson? Oh, they sounded the same from where I was sitting. Can I say, though, as we come to what is a very important piece of legislation, that I know Mr Flavell has worked very hard in our community. I say “our community” because we are elected members of Parliament from an area of the Bay of Plenty where our electorates overlap—his, Waiariki, and mine, Rotorua. Over the last couple of years as elected MPs, the only two elected constituent MPs in that part of the Bay of Plenty, I know that he has worked very hard in terms of consulting with his community, as I have.

Gambling can do great harm in our communities—in fact, in New Zealand. At the same time there are people who gamble for enjoyment and for whom it does no harm at all. I believe that Mr Flavell’s piece of legislation focuses on creating rules for people in a local environment and giving local authorities some tools, some powers, to decide for themselves to a greater degree what types of rules they would like, what sorts of controls they would like, in the area of their competence.

I would say to him that last year I consulted fairly widely by writing to people, and through advertising and asking constituents from the Rotorua electorate—from Kawerau, from Murupara, from the Te Puke area—to tell me what they thought about this. The vast majority of people who responded to the survey, and there were some thousands, were in favour of greater control around the pokie machines that are used. So I support him in his endeavours and in his legislation.

Mr Flavell raised the issue of Kawerau, a great little town that he and I share as members of Parliament. Can I say that Kawerau, as with many small parts of New Zealand, faces some challenges, but it is a community of people who care about themselves and others. But in Kawerau there are a number of pokie machines. [Interruption] I got a lot more support in Kawerau than you did, Mr Prasad, but there would be a reason for that, and that is because you have yet to win an election. Good luck in the future; I think you cannot.

But anyway, let me continue. What I would say about Kawerau is that I have had ongoing discussions with the mayor there, who said that they are not necessarily against pokie machines. They do believe they can do some harm, but the Mayor of Kawerau and his councillors would like greater control themselves. More than that, he said there are significant amounts of money that go through the machines in Kawerau, and there is some money that stays in the community.

A little while ago some of the proceeds were used to fix up and rebuild the BMX track, because one of New Zealand’s best BMX riders, Sarah Walker, comes from Kawerau. It is a great thing and an excellent thing for the community. Actually, that would not have been done without the funding that comes back from some of these pokie trusts. But the Mayor of Kawerau, Mr Campbell, has said to me that he believes that if pokies are to stay there, more of that money should be spent in that community. I agree with him on that, and this piece of legislation at least starts a debate around what should happen there.

Can I say that Rotorua, although it is a fantastic place to visit—and there is not a single member of this House who would disagree with me—has another name. It is occasionally called “Roto-Vegas”, because some years ago it was said that there were lot of pokie machines there. Actually, if you have visited Vegas in America, you will know that gambling is a small part of it. It is because you can have so much fun there. And that is what is great about Rotorua—so much fun. But we do have pokie machines there and there is an ongoing wide debate about this. I want to make one—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member, but the time has come for me to leave the Chair.

• Debate interrupted.