Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) : Pursuant to an agreement in the Business Committee, I seek leave for the debates on the questions that the Bishop Suter Art Gallery Governance Restructuring Bill be read a second time and a third time to be taken together as a single debate of 12 10-minute speeches.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) : I am very pleased to take a call on the second reading of the Treaty of Waitangi (Removal of Conflict of Interest) Amendment Bill, if only to express my relief that a majority of the Justice and Electoral Committee decided that the bill was without merit in terms of what it purported to do.

When the bill was first read in this House some time ago, National was reasonably upfront in stating quite clearly that although we were very happy to support it going to the select committee, we saw little merit in it. I said that as the issues in it had been raised—and raised in a way that New Zealand First often tends to raise issues to do with Treaty matters, especially in an election year—I was of the opinion that the bill should go to a select committee so that those issues could be discussed, debated, and considered fairly, if only to maintain the integrity of the process of the Waitangi Tribunal, which has served this nation very well since 1975. I might add that the tribunal has been the object of study and visits by overseas indigenous peoples and others who have come to see how we have addressed, and continue to address, the issue of historical claims of the indigenous Māori of New Zealand against the Crown, and an examination of the Crown’s conduct pursuant to the Treaty of Waitangi.

This bill is taking its course and has been to the select committee. As I said, we in National thought it should go there, but now that it has been there and come back with the majority of the committee against it, I think we can all be reasonably satisfied that it has had its proper scrutiny. It was found to be wanting in terms of what it proposed. I will not say that that is what I always thought, but what it does present, I think, is a picture of a functioning forum—unique in the world, I might add—that examines Crown conduct vis-à-vis the indigenous people of this nation.

The bill states that a conflict of interest arises in respect of the fact that the judges of the Māori Land Court sit on the Waitangi Tribunal. There are two different jurisdictions, as we are all probably aware. The Waitangi Tribunal was established under its own Act in 1975. It is a permanent commission of inquiry charged with making recommendations to the Government on Crown conduct according to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. Gleaning the meanings of those principles, or gleaning those principles from a study of the two versions of the Treaty of Waitangi, one Māori and one English, called for an approach that was more inquiry-driven than strictly legal or adversarial. I have sat on the tribunal and have seen how that inquiry function has been very supportive of the kaupapa. But it is very important none the less, as there are quite high stakes here in terms of public interest and the politics of it, that it possess—and it still does—a semi-judicial function.

The Māori Land Court, of course, has its own separate jurisdiction under Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993. They are two different jurisdictions, and, on the face of it—and in fact—they are not in conflict as to the two tasks to be performed. One thing, though—the upside of the fact that judges of the Māori Land Court sit on the tribunal—is that there is an understanding of the issues that are likely to come before the tribunal. This is a specialised area of the law. We see that with the Environment Court, for instance, and with the Employment Court. Those courts deal with specialised areas of the law, and the Māori Land Court even more so in terms of what we are dealing with here, I think, than with some of the other areas of the law. It therefore calls for people with an underlying knowledge of the Māori dynamic, Māori iwi structures, and so on.

The second comment on this issue of so-called conflict of interest is that it is not unusual for judges, for instance, to be able to sit in more than one jurisdiction. This is not something unique in the jurisdiction we are talking about. High Court judges sit on the Court of Appeal, and District Court judges and Māori Land Court judges may serve in the Environment Court. As far as I am aware there has never been any suggestion that there is an inherent conflict of interest arising in such situations. The situation is similar here. There is no inherent conflict of interest in Māori Land Court judges serving on the Waitangi Tribunal. The other thing is that members of the judiciary—and I am talking about the wider judiciary—often undertake tasks outside the judicial system. Chairing commissions of inquiry, as long as it does not conflict with judges’ judicial role, is a practice, as well.

The point is that there is nothing unusual in what is happening here. There is nothing unique about it; it happens across our judiciary. But the very fact that it is raised by New Zealand First tends, in my mind, to raise the question as to whether we are picking on these two jurisdictions simply because they deal only with Māori issues. I hope not. In any event, that has been rejected by the select committee, as well. It is proper, because the stakes are high in this whole Treaty of Waitangi process, that if from time to time issues are raised as to the efficacy of what we are doing here, then there is a forum within which we can air these matters, and that is what has happened here.

I hope that as the majority of the House sees no merit in the bill, that might convince our colleague who is in charge of it, Pita Paraone. I respect his judgment, but, given that this matter has been widely aired in its second reading—and I have read New Zealand First’s comments in the report back from the select committee—he may have a comment to make about the reasons put forward by the committee and by the majority of MPs in this House as to why his bill ought not to proceed.

In closing I say that the Government, I think today and maybe yesterday, has introduced two major settlement bills to the House. After 9 years, that is a good thing. I do not make any mention at this moment of National’s position, but certainly in the future—as we have said many times—when we make Government, which we obviously hope to do in a few months’ time, we wish to move the settlement of Treaty injustices forward in a more timely way. If, as there seems to be, there is wide support by the iwi of the central North Island for the two settlement bills that are now before the House, then that makes us pleased as well. The one thing we all want—all of us across the House including New Zealand First, despite this bill—is that the momentum for Māori development, which has been obvious and spectacular over the last 20 years, continues. The entry of those two bills into the House is progress, and we will see more of that sort of thing when the election is over and National takes those seats on the other side of the House.

DAIL JONES (NZ First) : I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Could I just clarify where New Zealand First is on the speaking list. We are on a second reading and have just had the second speech from a National member, so are we No. 8 or No. 10 in the speaking list of 12? If we are No. 8 it means that the Greens, the Māori Party, United Future, and ACT have all missed out on an opportunity to speak—that is, if they wanted to speak.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): Could everyone other than Dail Jones sit down please.

DAIL JONES: I mention it for the sake of the Māori Party members, if they had wanted to speak.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): Can I deal with the point of order please.

DAIL JONES: The point of order is that they have lost their opportunity to speak.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): I have heard the point of order and I am now going to adjudicate on it and explain.

DAIL JONES: We have no objection to—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): Thank you very much. Can you please sit? The first people to speak in this second reading 2 or 3 weeks ago were from New Zealand First and National. Labour should have taken the call when we came into the debate today. It was taken by National. I will now resume the order, as at No. 3. We will have Labour, the Greens, the Māori Party, United Future, ACT, and then we will skip a National speaker and go on. Thank you.

Hon DOVER SAMUELS (Labour) : Te mea tuatahi māku, kei te mihi atu ki a koe e te whaea Georgina, i roto i āu nei tirohanga mō tēnei pire e pā ana ki te Rōpū o te Taraipiunara. Nā reira, kei te mihi atu.

[The first thing for me is to acknowledge your views, madam Georgina, in respect of this bill about the Waitangi Tribunal.]

I am just acknowledging the contribution by the Hon Georgina te Heuheu in terms of her wise observations about this bill. I am very interested in making a contribution to this bill, because it talks about conflicts of interest.

Nā, tuarua, kei te mihi atu ki a koe e te whanaunga e Pita, nāu nei tēnei take i whakapuaki ake hei kōrerotanga, hei whakawhitiwhititanga whakaaro mō ngā āhuatanga e pā ana ki te tribunal.

[Secondly, I acknowledge you, Pita, the relative, the one responsible for this bill, as we debate and deliberate aspects relating to the tribunal.]

I am acknowledging also the contribution and the introduction of this bill by our colleague Pita Paraone. It actually goes to the core of what the Waitangi Tribunal is all about. I supported the introduction of the Treaty of Waitangi (Removal of Conflict of Interest) Amendment Bill and its referral to the Justice and Electoral Committee. The reason was the unclear nature of the process in terms of proposed or perceived conflicts of interest. I think it is very important that when we look at a judiciary—specifically, the tribunal and the tribunal’s functions—we can have confidence in it. Irrespective of the make-up of the tribunal, the people of New Zealand, both Māori and non-Māori, have to be confident that the people in our jurisdictions have the ability and integrity to carry out their duties without conflict and without persuasion by anybody.

At the time of the bill’s introduction I read its explanatory note, which comes from our colleague Pita Paraone, who is the architect of the bill. It states: “It seems highly dubious to allow serving Judges of either court to preside over matters on the Waitangi Tribunal when they may have presided over those matters in the High Court or the Maori Land Court.” Reading that stirs up ideas that there may be duplication or some conflicts of interest in terms of the jurisdiction of judges, and rightly so—I think the matter needed to be raised. This issue has been in the minds of many people involved not only in the tribunal but—God help us—in the Māori Land Court.

So I think that allowing the bill to go to a select committee was the appropriate process. It is in that arena that we listen to submissions from people who have experience and knowledge about these matters. The select committee process also allows us to canvass the general public and those stakeholders who may be affected and who are intending to make submissions to the tribunal or the Māori Land Court. That is the process that would eradicate or alleviate any concerns about the issues of proposed or perceived conflicts of interest.

I know that my colleague Pita Paraone is disappointed, but I thank him for raising the issue. I think this Parliament owes him that gratitude, and I would expect that members of that select committee would take on board his real concerns about the perceived conflict of interest. As I said before, I was one of the ones who supported the bill’s referral to the Justice and Electoral Committee.

Now the bill has come back to the House, and I thank the select committee members for their very comprehensive report. I am mindful of the conclusion of that report, where the select committee says: “We consider that there is no inherent conflict of interest in sitting judges of the High Court or Maori Land Court serving on the Waitangi Tribunal, or the Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court acting as the Chairperson of the Waitangi Tribunal.” Well, that is good enough for me. Although I understand the disappointment of my colleague Pita Paraone, I think he can understand and also appreciate the objectivity that has been brought to the process by the select committee, and I am glad to hear that that sentiment has also come from the Hon Georgina te Heuheu.

I have always been concerned about the integrity of the process not only of the Waitangi Tribunal but also of the Māori Land Court. This bill goes to the heart of the functions of the tribunal when we talk about the integrity of those who are presiding. Some of the decisions of the tribunal have been rather dubious. I understand some of the reasons why, and I understand the environment that the tribunal has to work in. It must decide whether the evidence that is put before it is historical fantasy—made up by people who have some sort of cultural diversions, if you like, and who have been watching The Lord of the Rings and coming before the tribunal with that type of evidence—or historical fact.

There are two phenomena within this jurisdiction. There are those who have many stories to tell. There are those who still believe that Maui fished the North Island out of the sea—I am one of them, because I am a fisherman. But it is not necessarily factual, and it is not necessarily true. So when these matters are put before the tribunal we need the rangatira, both men and women, who have wide knowledge about tikanga and tekanga. They are two different things. Tikanga is the culture of Māori, and tekanga is the spinning of a lot of bullshit—with respect, Madam Assistant Speaker. That is the inherent difference. Sometimes when rangatira are sitting up there, they are confused at the difference between tikanga and tekanga.

I see that my colleague Pita Sharples has a smile on his face. He knows what I am talking about. In the past, I have sometimes seen him presiding on both sides of the table, and I do not know whether he is telling me tekanga or tikanga! He has advocated in this House this afternoon about tennis players—about Ngāti Kahungunu being tennis players mai rā anō since 1840. I can tell members that the Ngāpuhi have been tennis players since the 1600s. Our rocks, our tennis balls, were a bloody sight bigger than theirs. So that comes back to tekanga again.

I come back to the bill, Madam Assistant Speaker; I am just saying that therein is the integrity. We are satisfied that the select committee has done its job, and I support the committee’s appropriate recommendation.

Nō reira, kei te mihi ki a tātou katoa. E Pita, tēnā koe me wō whakataukī, ā, ko koe te rangatira o te purei pāoro o te tēnehi. Taku kōrero ki a koe, āta kōrero. Kei konā taku whanaunga a Hone e titiro ana ki a koe, ā te wā e tū ai te All Blacks ki te purei, tēnā pea, kua wini tātou. Nō reira, huri ana i tō tātou Whare, tēnā koutou.

[So I acknowledge all of us. Peter, greetings to you and your wise sayings. You said you were a top tennis player. I say to you, look out. My relative Hone is over there keeping an eye on you. When the All Blacks turn out to play—who knows, we might win. So greetings to you collectively throughout our House.]

Madam Assistant Speaker, thank you for your indulgence. Kia ora tātou.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) : Tēnā koe, Madam Assistant Speaker. Tēnā tātou katoa e te Whare. I am sorry, but I find no humour in having to speak to this bill. This New Zealand First bill, which is promoted by Pita Paraone and is denounced as being anti-Māori by Māori from throughout the country, plans to end the careers of some of our best Māori judges of the Māori Land Court, the High Court, and the Waitangi Tribunal, and to stop them from serving their own people.

This bill is exactly the same as that other anti-Māori bill put forward by New Zealand First, represented at the Justice and Electoral Committee by Pita Paraone, voted for by all of Labour’s Māori MPs including Parekura Horomia, Nanaia Mahuta, Mahara Okeroa, Mita Ririnui, Dover Samuels, Dave Hereora, and Shane Jones, and denounced as being anti-Māori by Māori from throughout the country. That bill was called the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill, and it proposed taking the Treaty of Waitangi out of all New Zealand legislation. Thankfully, the rest of the House voted with the Māori Party at the second reading and threw the bill out, but not before all of Labour’s Māori MPs had actually voted to delete the Treaty of Waitangi from all New Zealand legislation. And vote for it they did. It was not just a couple of them, but the whole lot of them: Parekura Horomia, Nanaia Mahuta, Mahara Okeroa, Mita Ririnui, Dover Samuels, Dave Hereora, and Shane Jones.

In fact, so horrified was Angeline Greensill, the Māori Party candidate for Hauraki-Waikato, that she rang me to ask whether I was sure about that. She asked me to confirm that every one of Labour’s Māori MPs, including Parekura Horomia, Nanaia Mahuta, Mahara Okeroa, Mita Ririnui, Dover Samuels, Dave Hereora, and Shane Jones actually did something as dumb as to vote to delete the Treaty of Waitangi from all New Zealand legislation. Being a fully paid-up member of the Māori Party, I had no option but to tell her the truth: that in fact, yes, they had—all of Labour’s Māori MPs had voted to delete the Treaty of Waitangi from all legislation.

Hon Nanaia Mahuta: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. On the matter that was raised, clearly on the first reading of the bill Labour members voted for it to be sent to the select committee. But if the member wants to establish the facts in the House and go through the Hansard at that time, he will find the bill was sent to the select committee, and on the second reading it was voted against by Māori members in the Labour Government—in fact, by the Labour Government.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): I appreciate the point, but you are making a debating point.

Dail Jones: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. There must be some degree of relevance in what the member is saying. He is debating a bill that has long gone. Can he at least get to the point—that is, if he knows what the point of this bill is? So far, he has indicated a total absence of relevance to this bill. Could he be relevant? Madam Assistant Speaker, it is your responsibility to require him to be relevant.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): Thank you. I do not need to be reminded of my responsibility. Yes, I ask the member to confine his comments to this particular bill. He was taking off on to past legislation.

HONE HARAWIRA: This bill, the Treaty of Waitangi (Removal of Conflict of Interest) Amendment Bill, is the same in many ways as the earlier bill I have referred to. This bill has also been put forward by New Zealand First. This bill was also represented at the Justice and Electoral Committee by Pita Paraone. This bill was also supported by all of Labour’s Māori MPs, including Parekura Horomia, Nanaia Mahuta, Mahara Okeroa, Mita Ririnui, Dover Samuels, Dave Hereora, and Shane Jones. This bill has also been denounced as being anti-Māori by Māori from throughout the country. I am happy to say for all of those reasons and more the Māori Party will not be supporting this bill.

The Māori Party will not be supporting this anti-Māori bill put forward by New Zealand First, represented at the select committee by Pita Paraone, supported by all of Labour’s Māori MPs, including Parekura Horomia, Nanaia Mahuta, Mahara Okeroa, Mita Ririnui, Dover Samuels, Dave Hereora, and Shane Jones, and denounced as being anti-Māori by Māori from throughout the country, because we know, as does the select committee, that sitting on both the Māori Land Court and the Waitangi Tribunal requires people to have an understanding of tribal structure, Māori land history, custom, and tradition. Given that 80 percent of those people are likely to be Māori, we know that this bill would effectively dump all of those Māori who had dedicated their lives to law school, court work, and tribunal work before taking up an appointment to either the Māori Land Court or the Waitangi Tribunal, and would dismiss 95 percent of the greatest legal minds within Māoridom. How dumb is that? How mind-numbingly nonsensically, foolishly downright dumb is that?

Another reason the Māori Party will not be supporting this anti-Māori bill put forward by New Zealand First, represented at the select committee by Pita Paraone, supported by all of Labour’s Māori MPs, including Parekura Horomia, Nanaia Mahuta, Mahara Okeroa, Mita Ririnui, Dover Samuels, Dave Hereora, and Shane Jones, and denounced as being anti-Māori by Māori from all around the country is that it continues the assault against some of our top jurists. People like Chief Justice Dame Sian Elias, Māori Land Court Judge Caren Fox, and Chief Judge of the Māori Land Court Joe Williams have all been dragged into the political spotlight and attacked by overzealous and intellectually challenged Ministers of the Crown, who want to impose their prejudices on the judiciary. There is probably not another party that wants to change the appointment process for judges in Aotearoa as much as the Māori Party does, but even we recognise the importance of keeping the judiciary separate from politicians who come and go at the whim of the electorate.

Another reason the Māori Party will not be supporting this anti-Māori bill put forward by New Zealand First, represented at the select committee by Pita Paraone, supported by all of Labour’s Māori MPs, including Parekura Horomia, Nanaia Mahuta, Mahara Okeroa, Mita Ririnui, Dover Samuels, Dave Hereora, and Shane Jones, and denounced as being anti-Māori by Māori from throughout the country is that it plans to muzzle the voices of judges who demonstrate every day high levels of judicial competence and knowledge of Māori land matters, and to replace them with retired judges who already have heaps on their plate. I was happy to be the Māori Party representative on the select committee that considered this bill, and I was equally happy to hear the recommendation of the select committee that there was no inherent conflict of interest and that therefore this bill could be thrown out on the same scrap heap as the last one.

Finally, let me ask this most obvious of questions—the question on the lips of Māori people all around the country. If it is a conflict of interest that Pita Paraone, Parekura Horomia, Nanaia Mahuta, Mahara Okeroa, Mita Ririnui, Dover Samuels, Dave Hereora, and Shane Jones are really concerned about, then what about the conflict of interest that arises from the thieving buggers who actually stole our land being the same critters who then set up the Waitangi Tribunal to decide the case, pick who the judges will be, decide what can be returned and what will not be returned, pick who can speak for the poor, bloody victims, and then say how much the victims will have to pay to get their own land back? That is a conflict of interest, I say to Mr Paraone, if the member wants to talk about a conflict of interest. Well, that is what we call a conflict of interest, I say to Mr Paraone. That is the real deal that no one here seems to want to talk about.

I ask Mr Horomia why the thieves who stole his tūpuna’s land should also get to pick the judges for the court case. How about that for a conflict of interest? And I ask Ms Mahuta why the thieves who stole her tūpuna’s land should also get to say which lands she can have back. How is that for a conflict of interest? Why should the thieves who stole Mr Okeroa’s tūpuna’s land get to say who his negotiators can be? How is that for a conflict of interest? I ask all of the rest of the Māori MPs in Labour how they dare to support legislation that would delete the Treaty and deny Māori the right to sit on our own land courts.

This bill, which is supported by Pita Paraone, Parekura Horomia, Nanaia Mahuta, Mahara Okeroa, Mita Ririnui, Dover Samuels, Dave Hereora, and Shane Jones in spite of overwhelming opposition from Māori right around the country, and which is intended to strip the Waitangi Tribunal and the Māori Land Court of some of the best legal minds in Māoridom, is nothing but a pathetic attempt to deny Māori equal access to all levels of the judiciary. The Māori Party stands proudly alongside the rest of Māoridom in denouncing this anti-Māori bill, and we call on this House to consign it to the same trash bin as the last piece of legislative prejudice put forward by New Zealand First. Tēnā koutou katoa.

METIRIA TUREI (Green) : I congratulate my colleague Hone Harawira on his contribution to this debate, because I agree with virtually everything he said. I will talk about the Green Party view on this bill, which is very similar, although it will not be put in such an elegant or passionate way, I think.

It interests me a great deal that New Zealand First has a tendency to put forward into the ballot bills that concern the Treaty of Waitangi in various ways. In fact, as far as I can remember—and I have been here for a wee while now—there has been only one New Zealand First bill pulled from the ballot that did not concern the Treaty. A number of them have concerned the Treaty, and all of those bills have been focused on undermining the role of the Treaty in legislation and in society. That raises a great deal of concern. It means that when the Greens approach legislation like this Treaty of Waitangi (Removal of Conflict of Interest) Amendment Bill from New Zealand First, given that it concerns the Treaty as well, we do so with a great deal of suspicion that the purpose of this legislation is about undermining the Treaty, about eliminating it from the law books and from the community’s view, and in some way about taking an anti-Māori approach.

It is very sad that a party that has a number of Māori MPs—which it certainly did in the last Parliament—is happy to promote such legislation to the House and that its Māori MPs are then encouraged or required to promote that legislation through the House, as well. I have some sympathy for the members who are in that position, because I think that it puts them in an inherent conflict of interest, which is just the situation that they expect the Chief Judge of the Māori Land Court and the chairperson of the Waitangi Tribunal to be in.

Getting to the bill itself, as far as I can tell from my work on the Justice and Electoral Committee, there is no requirement that the Chief Judge of the Māori Land Court also be the chairperson of the tribunal. The law simply allows for that to happen, recognising that there is still a shortage of people with the kind of expertise needed, and it makes sure that, regardless of other circumstances, it is possible to have the most highly skilled person for both those jobs doing both those jobs. Given that it is not a mandatory requirement, there really is no need for legislation that takes that opportunity away, because it simply undermines the ability of Māori to take up these positions and fulfil these seats of power.

One of the issues raised by the select committee was that the pool of people available for positions like this, in a number of positions like this, is still very small. That is quite true. That is because there have been decades—in fact, a century and a bit—of under-representation of Māori in the higher reaches of education, and there continues to be a lack of Māori getting the kind of education and experience that is needed to do this kind of work. One might reflect, for example, on the universities that are currently going through the process of using funding formula issues to restrict access to some of the first-year arts and Māori courses, which again will have a disproportionate effect on Māori. It will mean that they will have much greater difficulty in accessing tertiary education at the degree and post-degree level so that they are then able to have the kind of education, the kinds of qualifications, they need to get the work experience they need to do this kind of work.

There is a systemic issue with education that prevents Māori from getting the kind of education needed so that we can grow the pool of people who are able to do this work. Having said that, we are doing a little bit better. I have always been enormously amazed at the talent, skill, and knowledge of the people whom I went to law school with, for example. We have some fantastic examples of those people doing amazing work in their community, and that pool is growing slowly. But the systemic barriers to it continue to exist, and this legislation is simply another part of that systemic barrier. This provides a barrier at the top end. Where the universities are putting in barriers at the bottom end, New Zealand First wants to put barriers at the top end, again to prevent Māori from taking up these positions of considerable responsibility and authority. Again, this is a deeply anti-Māori measure that is promoted by a party with Māori MPs who should know better.

One of the other issues raised in the select committee was that resources are necessary to ensure that a person who is doing both jobs is able to do both jobs well and effectively. That is always an issue for Māori organisations of any description—that there are simply not the resources available. The Greens are certainly of the view that the Waitangi Tribunal is insufficiently resourced to carry out the work that it is trying to do. The tribunal is often in quite a conflicted position, because it acts as an arbiter, or an assessor, of the wrongs that were committed against Māori by the State in various forms over many years, yet it does not have the full resources it needs to do that work as well as it could. It does a fantastic job with the resources it has, but it could do much better with more, and it is still pulled into a lot of the Government policies. For example, Michael Cullen, the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, said in the select committee today how pleased he was to see the Waitangi Tribunal, the Office of Treaty Settlements, and the Crown Forestry Rental Trust working together around Government policy. But, of course, that raises real questions about the role of the tribunal as an independent arbiter of the wrongs that were committed against Māori when working with the Government on a policy that seeks to restrict their compensation, if you like, to less than 1 percent of the value of the properties they lost.

So there is still a real issue around the resourcing of the tribunal and the Māori Land Court to make sure that they can do their work well. I am pleased that the select committee referred to that in its report, so that it could be brought to the attention of the House and so that the whole concept and issue of resources for these organisations, and for the people who work there, can be raised continually for people’s purview.

Mr Harawira raised an interesting question around the role of Labour in supporting this legislation. I know that Labour has supported a number of New Zealand First members’ bills—including, for example, the foetal criminal responsibility bill, which was promoted by Ron Mark, and other legislation like the members’ bills promoted by New Zealand First that have called for the elimination of references to the Treaty of Waitangi from legislation. I do think this is an ethical issue for the public to be aware of. Labour and New Zealand First have a political agreement that Labour will support the first readings of all of New Zealand First’s members’ bills going to a select committee, whether or not individual Labour members agree with them. This is a big issue, especially when members’ bills generally involve conscience issues or issues that are of particular concern to individual members. At times, other members of other parties will want to make a personal statement or a personal stand on those issues, and I think they should be entitled to do so.

So a political agreement between these two parties—Labour and New Zealand First—prevents individual Labour members from being able to express their real view. They have to vote for, and have their name recorded in favour of, legislation that they are personally opposed to. I have great faith that Labour’s Māori members oppose this legislation, as I am sure they did when it came to the New Zealand First bill to eliminate references to the Treaty from legislation. I am sure that many Labour members were also opposed to Ron Mark’s foetal criminal responsibility bill. How ethical is it for MPs to be required to vote against their conscience and their personal views on such serious matters, and on personal matters, in a context where members would ordinarily have the opportunity to express their own views on members’ bills? I think it is an unfortunate state of affairs that Labour has got itself into with that political agreement. I think it is highly unethical.

The Green Party has done very well with its members’ bills without having such an agreement. In fact, we are the only party to have had members’ bills passed into law. Currently, three pieces of legislation are fully Green Party Acts, and we will add another two Acts in the next few months. We will have achieved five Acts, not because of an unethical deal that was done with another party but because we have done the work and put up the bills that get the legislature’s support. I think that is a much more ethical position than that proposed by New Zealand First and Labour. Thank you.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Customs) : Given the contribution of the MP for Te Tai Tokerau—soon to be replaced—Hone Harawira, I was not prepared to give him the charity of my silence on a number of issues that were raised in the House in relation to positions taken by Labour Māori Government MPs. In fact, although the MP for Te Tai Tokerau may be happy to mislead the House—and people listening to the debate could very easily be misled by that contribution—it really is important to set the record straight. Let us look at the issue of the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill, which was introduced by New Zealand First. Yes, that bill was supported through the first reading stage to be sent to a select committee. The clear understanding given by Labour Māori MPs at the time was that, although that is a view held strongly amongst New Zealand First, we were not prepared to stifle any debate on the Treaty of Waitangi at any point, because it is a debate that every New Zealander has an interest in. That is why the select committee process becomes so important.

I now move on to the Treaty of Waitangi (Removal of Conflict of Interest) Amendment Bill. For any person listening to a considered debate on issues in this House, if one were listening to the contribution of the MP for Te Tai Tokerau on this bill—and, again, sending it to select committee can be a positive thing because the submission process in itself starts to inform this House, through its select committee members, about the public view on issues that are hotly contested across all sectors of this House—it would be wrong to think that Labour Māori MPs do not support issues regarding Māori. In fact, it was the Labour Government that established the Waitangi Tribunal. It was the Labour Government that allowed retrospective claims to the tribunal, and it was the Labour Government that continues to advance Treaty settlements in this House. In fact, if people were to listen to the considered debate on just how Labour Māori MPs and this Government advance and support Māori development, they would be very interested and concerned to hear that many of the Māori Party MPs have not voted for Treaty settlement legislation—and that is a fact. So the charity of my silence would be misplaced on this particular issue, because this House is informed on good political debate.

The Green Party member made the point that, although understandings apply across the House, much of the Green Party legislation that has gone through has done so with the support of this Government on similar understandings of a different nature. But we cannot take the moral high ground too much in terms of the nature of the relationships that exist in this House.

I come back to this bill, because it is an important issue that was well considered by the Justice and Electoral Committee. I think the most cogent part of its consideration was expressed on page 3 of its report, which brings the crux of the matter into a nice, sharp, crisp statement. That is the reason why we will not be supporting this bill in its third reading. The report states: “It is not unusual for Judges to be able to sit in more than one jurisdiction: for example, High Court judges sit on the Court of Appeal, District Court judges and Maori Land Court judges may serve in the Environment Court. There is no suggestion that any inherent conflict of interests arises in such situations and we see no reason for considering the situation of Maori Land Court judges and serving High Court judges to be any different. We were forwarded advice issued by the Crown Law Office in 2001 which supports this conclusion.” I think that if anyone wants to get to the nub of the matter and understand the full consideration of the select committee, that really is a very clear statement, and it is well put within the context of this report. I am happy we have had the debate, and I inform the House that Labour Government members will not support this bill.

Hon TAU HENARE (National) : National will not be supporting the Treaty of Waitangi (Removal of Conflict of Interest) Amendment Bill any further, either. I want to put the argument in this manner—and I ask my elder—

Pita Paraone: What’s he talking about?

Hon TAU HENARE: The member is not my elder? That is fair enough. That is fine. I was just trying to be a bit charitable for once in my life.

Pita Paraone: It’s a surprise.

Hon TAU HENARE: Yes, it did surprise a few people, but let us revert to how we usually act.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): Please don’t.

Hon TAU HENARE: If it were so important to have this bill, why was it not part of the coalition negotiations? If this bill and the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill were so important, then why did New Zealand First not put them up as cornerstone policies going into a coalition deal with the present Government? I can only suggest and surmise that this measure was not that important a deal to New Zealand First. This bill is New Zealand First’s bread, butter, and breakfast. It is what it trots out every election time. It is what it trots out to get a bit of sympathy from a certain quarter.

Hon Darren Hughes: The Don Brash quarter?

Hon TAU HENARE: It is funny that that “ginga” says that—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): The member will use correct names, please.

Hon TAU HENARE: —OK, Mr Darren Hughes—because if it was a “Don Brash” view, then why the hell did the Labour Party vote for it to go to the Justice and Electoral Committee?

Hon Darren Hughes: You worshipped Don Brash.

Hon TAU HENARE: Is it all right for the member to sit in the back row and snipe and say, with all of his 22 years of experience, that it is a Don Brash thing to do but Labour will vote for it anyway, just to keep New Zealand First happy? Is that the principled way to deal with the issues?

Hon Darren Hughes: You were a Brash man.

Hon TAU HENARE: I am a Brash man? Well, I would rather be a Brash man than a Clark lady. The unfortunate thing is—

Hon Darren Hughes: Anything for a job, eh Tau!

Hon TAU HENARE: Well, let us talk about that, shall we?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): I wonder whether we could talk about the—

Hon TAU HENARE: Oh no, Madam Speaker. If it is all right for him to snipe, it is all right for me to respond in kind. If you are going to rule—[Interruption] I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I do not mind your rulings; your rulings are fantastic. However, if I am told to go back to the bill, then surely to goodness the member on the other side of the House should be told to zip it.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): I thank the Hon Tau Henare. Interjections should be short, pithy, and not be a barrage. They were getting close to being continuous. I wonder whether we all could go back to the bill.

Hon TAU HENARE: It is no wonder this bill is not being supported by anybody in the House, apart from my colleagues from New Zealand First. As I said earlier, that is their stock in trade. It is just outrageous that those members could accuse the Chief Judge of the Māori Land Court of having a conflict of interest because of that position and because he also acts as chairperson of the Waitangi Tribunal. I suppose I have a conflict of interest because I was the Minister who appointed the current Chief Judge of the Māori Land Court. If, for example, the judge was to hear a case about, say, Ngāti Hine, and then in his position as chairperson of the tribunal was to hear a case on a similar issue concerning Ngāti Hine, I am sure—I am under no illusion—that the integrity of the judge would require him to stand aside. So there would be no conflict of interest.

I ask where this bill comes from. Has there been a conflict of interest? No, there has not. Has there ever been a conflict of interest between the two positions? No, there has not. This bill is a make-up measure to pander to a certain section of our society, and that happens only in an election year. It happens only when the 5 percent is rather a distant hurdle to get over. That is all it is about. Umpteen dozen people turned up to the Māori Affairs Committee—not ordinary Joe Bloggs on the street but well-informed professional people—and gave evidence that there is no, and can be no, conflict of interest.

If there were a glaring conflict of interest, then a judge would step aside. In fact, in other jurisdictions judges of the High Court have sat as a judge on one of the other courts. For example, a High Court judge sometimes sits in the Court of Appeal, on the criminal appeal or civil appeal divisions; and a District Court judge sometimes serves on other courts, like the Environment Court. If there were a possibility of a conflict of interest in those circumstances, we can basically guarantee that the judge would stand aside and somebody else would take over. So do we have to be so prescriptive, or should we leave it to people’s good judgment—especially these people? They are the very people whom the public rely on to get things right. We may disagree with some of their decisions, but, essentially, those people are held in high esteem and nine times out of 10 get things right. They have the best interests of the community at heart. That is why National will not support the bill any further.

I will take a couple of minutes to suggest that if the argument is about supporting a bill to the select committee, then why not have a system whereby every bill is supported to the select committee? The Hon Dover Samuels said he would support the bill to the select committee, to see whether it had merit. If that were the case, why do the Labour Party, the National Party, New Zealand First, and everybody else not support every bill to the select committee?

Hon Mahara Okeroa: No merit.

Hon TAU HENARE: We do not know that; not until a bill comes out of the select committee. So that is a little point I want to make. We should not use the decision to send, or not send, a bill to the select committee as an excuse to dump that bill. Nobody believes that. For goodness’ sake, we are all grown-ups. We know that the sending of bills to select committees is politics, horse-trading, and all that sort of thing. But if we are serious about it, then let us think very carefully about sending all bills to the select committee. I do not think we would get into that, because the system would be far too cumbersome, but there we are.

National will not support the bill. It has no merit, and, thankfully, most of Parliament will vote “no”.

Hon MAHARA OKEROA (Minister of State) : I came into the Chamber earlier because I was looking forward to hearing what the member for Te Tai Tokerau had to say. I was looking forward to that with great anticipation, but, unfortunately, I was disappointed once more. I was absolutely disappointed. That member has been in the House for almost one term. If he had not said “Okeroa, Ririnui” and so on and so forth, there would have been nothing in his speech at all.

The other point I want to pick up on, as an introduction to what I need to say about the Treaty of Waitangi (Removal of Conflict of Interest) Amendment Bill, is the extraordinary difficulty I have in accepting the comment that the sponsor of this bill could actually be described as promoting something that is anti-Māori. I find that to be totally unacceptable, in the sense that the sponsor of this bill, Mr Pita Paraone, is descended from one of the principal and highly respected chiefs of his people, and who had demonstrated everything about being very pro-Māori as opposed to being anti-Māori. I need to say that my knowledge of the sponsor of this bill is that he has had the courage to put up this member’s bill, and I find no reason to then call him anti-Māori.

I know the sponsor quite well and I would say that all his life he has done everything to assist Māori, and not only that but he has been acknowledged as having done so. I refer to the honour that was awarded to him in respect of his services to Māori people. I want to put that in its proper context for people who are listening to the debate. If Mr Paraone were anti-Māori, then certainly he would not have been the recipient of an honour that reflected both his service to the community and to his people. The only anti-Māori flavour that I can conjure up, and that all Māori in New Zealand should be aware of, is the appalling record of the Māori Party in not supporting Treaty settlements.

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

Hon MAHARA OKEROA: I wish to continue on the theme I was articulating prior to the dinner break. Elements of the Māori Party attacked Ngāti Porou for their foreshore and seabed heads of agreement, calling it a sham. In doing so, Māori Party members rode roughshod over the right of iwi to make their own decisions, an ideal the Māori Party purports to support. Let me quote a leader of Ngāti Porou by the name of Api Māhuika: “I would warn Māori people to think again before voting in that”—Māori Party—“direction. If they are the Māori Party they should actually be saying to Ngāti Porou ‘congratulations for making … a precedent others can follow’.” I find that—not the comments by Api Māhuika but rather what occasioned those comments—definitely anti-Māori, anti-whānau, anti-hapū, and anti-iwi. In a sense, it is completely anti-Aotearoa.

We need to put this in context so that those who listened to the speech made by Hone Harawira are able to appreciate another point of view. That is really critical because, having weighed the evidence and considered the debate, the Labour Party recommends that this bill not be passed. We consider that there is no inherent conflict of interest in sitting judges of the High Court and the Māori Land Court serving on the Waitangi Tribunal, or in the Chief Judge of the Māori Land Court acting as the chairperson of the Waitangi Tribunal. We note that this view is supported by all the evidence and advice that was reviewed during the considerations. We consider further that the amendments proposed could severely limit the ability of the Waitangi Tribunal to draw on the expertise of those best qualified to act as members and to provide recommendations on matters of national importance.

I conclude, after some consideration, that the true value of Hone Harawira’s speech was only in his indelible printing on the consciousness of all those people watching the debate that Māori Labour MPs are anti-Māori. But they are not, because each and every one of those MPs has a huge knowledge and in-depth understanding of what marae and wharenui are about. On both marae and wharenui people have the ability to articulate, discuss, and debate differences of opinion. I do not see any clear difference between that situation and our allowing this bill to go before a select committee, following a democratic process that allows people the right not only of participation but of debate. To call Māori Labour MPs anti-Māori for following a tikanga of marae is totally and utterly unacceptable and misplaced.

Labour does not support this bill, but it is not because people are not allowed to articulate difference.

Nō reira, e te hoa e Pita anei te whakaputa mai i tēnei tangata ki a koutou, ki te wero e werohia nei e tō hoa, ā, kua kī a au kua he rawa, kua kotiti, kua rere kē hoki ngā āhuatanga o āna nei kōrero kua riro mai i runga i te pokohiwi, ehara i a mātou anake, ki a tātou katoa. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, mauri ora ki a tātou katoa.

[So to you, Pita, fellow colleague, and to you collectively, in respect of the challenge made by a colleague of yours, I say that aspects of his speech are totally wrong, misguided, and changed as well. Such talk should not be shouldered by one individual and by us, but by all of us collectively. So, greetings to you, greetings to you. May the force of good life be upon us all.]

Hon SHANE JONES (Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) : Kia ora anō tātou e te whānau. This bill was brought forward as an essential part of modern social democracy by my whanaunga Pita Paraone, a high-born son—unlike his critic Hone Harawira—of Ngāti Hine.

Nā reira, e puare ana tēnei Whare ki a koe e Pita, maua mai i ēnei whakaaro hei kōrerotanga, hei whāwhā, hei hamahama mā tātou. Koia tēnei te tikanga o tēnei Whare. E puare ana ki te iti me te rahi ahakoa pēhea te kawa, te kakara o tēnā take.

[This House, therefore, is open to you, Pita, to bring these viewpoints here for us to debate, to get a feel about them and to hammer out. That is the custom of this House. It is open to the minority and majority, regardless of how distasteful or how pleasant that issue may be.]

This House is the highest court in the land. It is a place where issues of this nature ought to be debated and made available for all manner of contributions. As I said in our Māori language, Pita Paraone has brought forward a perspective that will not carry the majority this evening, but he is entitled, as a key contributor to this House, to do so. Any suggestion from the member for Te Tai Tokerau that this bill is anti-Māori, anti-democratic, or inversely related to the advancement of our nation goes to show that the only creatures that enjoyed the contribution à la Hone Harawira this evening were the bug-eyed goldfish going round their bowls. They found a friend in Hone Harawira, who spouted circuitous, mindless rhetoric. He said that the future of the Waitangi Tribunal, the composition of the tribunal, and the confidence in the tribunal of the citizenry ought not to be debated here. Between the approaches of Pita Paraone and Hone Harawira, Māori voters up and down the country have two clear opportunities: one is to embrace a petty, very stunted, negative, and divisive view; the other is to embrace an open, vigorous, not necessarily consensus-oriented, but valuable contribution to this House.

I support much of what Mahara Okeroa had to say. Enough of Hone Harawira; the voters of the north will pass that verdict. In fact, today I met with Te Rōroa from Waimamaku. They are great supporters of what is happening in the area of the Treaty. They fear that the tide is going out so fast that my whanaunga is getting caught on a pipi bed. The tide is moving against him, and is taking a new waka, with the friends Rōpū Reipa and Aotearoa Tuatahi in it, into great fishing grounds. That waka is not stranded, surrounded by stunted pipis, scorched mussels, and desiccated fish, which represent the essence of Hone Harawira’s contribution. Fortunately, the proud families of Te Aupōuri, and the proud families of West Auckland—although Hone Harawira’s supporters would probably fit in the telephone box very near John Tamihere’s house—will not agree with one single word of the unwanted and superfluous remarks that he made this evening.

The reality is that we must have confidence in our jurists and our judicial officers. The odd, possibly deluded, complainant may have gone to Pita Paraone out there at Bucklands Beach—that hive of Māori activism—to alert him to the concern that some of our Māori judges on the Māori Land Court may lack the ability to be dispassionate and fair. In my experience, many of the Māori Land Court judges who also sit on the Waitangi Tribunal are just as fierce in their criticism of Māori contributions as their Pākehā colleagues are. At the moment, those judges can sit on the Environment Court, and they can sit on the tribunal.

Let us back our judiciary. Let us not be like Hone Harawira, who attacked that very sensible judge from Ngāti Kahungunu country. Hone Harawira says that inveterate taggers—junior voters, no doubt, of the Māori Party—should be allowed to escape and carry on their mindless destructiveness, without having to face the consequences of their actions. We will never hear that from Pita Paraone. He would say of that judge, in contrast to my whanaunga Hone Harawira, that he should be put on the honours list—not called a teke.

Therein lies the contrast between the two approaches. Of course, on our side we take elements from both approaches. We take the tradition-bound approach that Pita Paraone is bringing to the table, of tā te rangatira kai he kōrero—which basically means that debate and oratory are a chiefly pursuit—and we take the energy that occasionally is seen in this House, and that is largely anarchic when it is in Hone Harawira’s hands, and bind them together so that we have a balanced contribution in relation to the Treaty debate.

The concerns that Pita Paraone has lie with whether a potential conflict of interest is manageable. No less a powerful and judicious person than Peter Salmon has pointed out that it is, provided that it is declared, and provided that there is a process to manage it. I have no doubt that, in the event that a potential conflict of interest is so serious as to have a negative impact on the Crown, on the iwi, or on other stakeholders, there are more than enough judges to fill the role. Lord knows, we on this side of the House have been out on a harvesting exercise and have boosted the number of Māori Land Court judges. I say to Pita Paraone that when they are appointed they enjoy a rare privilege, which unfortunately we do not enjoy: they do not stand for office. However, many iwi have promoted the notion that Māori Land Court judges should have to go and gain their credentials from iwi, but for fear that Hone’s rhetoric might infect iwi decision-making, I hope that day never comes.

This bill is an example of a large party and its key colleague, a minority party—Aotearoa Tuatahi—being able to agree on how an issue should be debated. There is absolutely nothing wrong with people going to a select committee to give their differences of opinion, the select committee staff sieving them, the select committee members debating them, and, when the measure comes back to this House, the power of democracy having its way. That does not mean that the man ought not to have been allowed to bring that perspective here. He should be congratulated on it. He is actually adding to the richness of our parliamentary tradition, whereas, unfortunately, Hone Harawira is adding further fuel to his new name “Kaitaia Fire”, because what comes out of the mouth is hot and incandescent but it generates a lot of heat and precious little light. Kia ora tātou katoa.

DAVE HEREORA (Labour) : Firstly, I acknowledge the member in charge of the bill, Pita Paraone. It is not often that a member is able to have his bill pulled from the ballot in this way. The other fact is that Pita Paraone is Māori, and it is not often that we see bills coming through from Māori. I acknowledge him in relation to those two matters. I also reaffirm the undertaking given by Labour to support the passage of the bill through to the Justice and Electoral Committee, as that support was part of the confidence and supply agreement with New Zealand First.

I take this opportunity to respond to an issue raised prior to the dinner break. I think it is important that we have the option of referring bills to select committees—particularly for those of us who are not involved with the particular select committee—because it gives us more information. The select committee process has given us the opportunity to arrive at an informed decision on this bill, so I do think it is important. It has given that opportunity to those of us who are not associated with that select committee.

I read in the report back that the bill “proposes to amend the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 to remove the ability of serving Judges of the High Court or the Māori Land Court (including the Chief Judge of the Māori Land Court) to serve as members of the Waitangi Tribunal. Instead it provides that retired Judges of the High Court or Maori Land Court (including retired Chief Judges of the Maori Land Court) be members of the Waitangi Tribunal; and that a member who is either a retired Judge of the High Court or retired Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court should preside as Chairperson of the Tribunal.”

The bill cites an inherent conflict of interest as to the reasons for the proposed amendments. We do not support that view. We do not consider that there is an inherent conflict with sitting judges of the High Court or the Māori Land Court serving on the tribunal, or with the Chief Judge of the Māori Land Court acting as chairperson of the Waitangi Tribunal. It has worked, I think, well in the past, and we are not experiencing any major problems.

The Waitangi Tribunal, as we know, is charged with making recommendations to the Government on claims brought by Māori relating to actions or omissions of the Crown that may breach the principles of the Treaty, and the Māori Land Court makes decisions relating to ownership and administration of Māori land in accordance with Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993. I hold the very strong view that consideration should be given to the requirement for the Māori Land Court and Waitangi Tribunal members to have similar qualities—that is, the understanding of tribal structures and of the Māori land history, customs, and traditions. They are competencies that are relevant for the Chief Judge of the Māori Land Court and chairperson of the Waitangi Tribunal—especially considering that the pool of judges who meet those criteria is quite limited. So there may be practical difficulties for a person holding both positions if he or she does not have adequate resources or the ability to delegate that responsibility. On that point I note that the tribunal’s chairperson currently has the power to delegate work to an appointed deputy. I consider that this option, at the very least, partially addresses the concerns about workload.

I also take on board the concern raised by the member that there are other people in New Zealand who have the knowledge, or have even greater knowledge than a Māori Land Court judge on matters relating to issues of Māori, and in doing so I note that the role should be made available to others and not be limited to the judiciary. However, we consider that the amendments proposed could severely limit the ability of the Waitangi Tribunal to draw on the expertise of those best qualified to act as members. Currently, there are not enough judges around with the high level of understanding of Māori grievances and tribal systems that they need in order to serve just as members of the tribunal.

On occasions, judges disclose conflicts that allow parties to request an alternative presiding officer, or ask a member to withdraw or file a memorandum, which I think is perfectly legitimate. A more common example of conflict of interest for presiding officers is where they may have acted as counsel to one or other of the parties involved at some earlier stage of their careers. In that instance, again, the matter is usually resolved in the same way by the court proceedings.

Finally, I say again that in our view there is no inherent conflict with sitting judges of the High Court or Māori Land Court serving on the Waitangi Tribunal, or with the Chief Judge of the Māori Land Court acting as a chairperson of the tribunal. It has worked well in the past, as I said, without major problems. We consider that the amendments proposed could severely limit the ability of the Waitangi Tribunal to draw on the expertise of those best qualified to act as members, and there are not enough judges with the high level of understanding of Māori grievances and tribal systems that is needed for them to serve as members of the Waitangi Tribunal.

In finishing, I again acknowledge the member in charge of the bill. I think it is important that we as members of this Parliament have the opportunity to have this debate in order to be able to critique the report from the select committee so that members can reaffirm their position as to which way to vote on this matter.

DAIL JONES (NZ First) : I would like to congratulate Mr Dave Hereora on his speech and thank him for his kind remarks, as well. He at least looked at the Treaty of Waitangi Act, read the report, gave consideration to it, and gave some thought to what he had to say. That is unlike the member of the Māori Party, whom I doubt ever really read the report or the Treaty of Waitangi Act. I especially doubt whether that member has ever looked at section 4, because in his entire speech he seemed to be absolutely ignorant of the issues that are before the House tonight. I would also like to thank all other members who took part in this debate. New Zealand First is disappointed that this matter is clearly not going any further, but its members appreciate the opportunity for the bill to have been sent to the select committee, and for the people of New Zealand to give consideration to the issue raised by New Zealand First.

I would like to make some points on the bill that seem to have escaped the attention of most members of the House. Currently, section 4(2) of the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975, which is the section in question, states: “The Tribunal shall consist of—(a) a Judge or retired Judge of the High Court”. Currently, the Waitangi Tribunal can consist of a judge or retired judge of the High Court, not only the Chief Judge of the Māori Land Court. Section 4(2) states further “or the Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court.” The Act already envisages that the Chief Judge of the Māori Land Court may not be the only possibility for chairperson of the Waitangi Tribunal. That possibility is already contained in the Act, which goes on to state “and the Judge is both a member of the Tribunal and its Chairperson, and is appointed by the Governor-General…”, etc. So currently when we talk about expertise and all those wonderful things, the person who can be the chairperson need not be a Māori person and need not be the Māori Land Court judge. That is already provided for in the Act, and that is something we should bear in mind.

Subsection (b), which is not part of this bill, states that the tribunal shall also consist of “Not less than 2 other members and not more than 16 other members …”. New Zealand First members made the point, when we presented the bill to the House, that the Act should be amended so that the chairperson should be either a retired judge of the High Court—I emphasise that he should be a retired judge of the High Court, and that is already provided for in the current Act—or a retired Chief Judge of the Māori Land Court. The only change that we are bringing into this legislation is that the person who is a judge of the Māori Land Court should be someone who is a retired Chief Judge of the Māori Land Court. It is as simple as that, yet for one reason or another the bill has been totally confused by so many members of this House.

I have heard speeches given tonight saying that if we remove the Māori Land Court judge and if we put in a retired Chief Māori Land Court Judge, as this bill states, we will lose expertise. Well, that must be nonsense, because a retired Chief Māori Land Court Judge is likely to know a lot more than a recently appointed Chief Māori Land Court Judge. That is the first point.

The second point, of course, is that irrespective of who the judge or chairperson might be, we have up to 16 other possible members of the tribunal. In terms of the very way in which they are appointed, subsection (2)(a) of that section states: “In considering the suitability of persons for appointment to the Tribunal, the Minister of Maori Affairs—(a) Shall have regard to the partnership between the 2 parties of the Treaty; and (b) Shall have regard not only to a person’s personal attributes but also to a person’s knowledge of and experience in the different aspects of matters likely to come before the Tribunal.” So every other member of the Waitangi Tribunal has to have that expertise.

So all these speeches I have been hearing in the last few days that have said there will be a lack of expertise are absolute nonsense. It suggests that the members who made those speeches have not actually read the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 and grasped the provisions of section 4(2)(a). Every other member of the tribunal must have that expertise. There would be no question of expertise being lost if the person were a retired High Court judge, because the only other person would be the retired Māori Land Court judge.

New Zealand First is saying that when one has a current serving judge, whether it is of the High Court or the Māori Land Court, there is inevitably a concern that someone is currently in the business of dealing with these lands and suchlike, and that “justice is not being seen to be done”. For some reason or another there is always a concern, especially when we have a disgruntled person before the tribunal, that someone is likely to say that a person is currently a Chief Judge of the Māori Land Court, and that he is looking after his mates and his family. Well, that is not possible under the proposal that is set out by New Zealand First to have a retired High Court judge, which is already provided for in the existing law, or a retired Māori Land Court judge. That is the only difference: a retired Māori Land Court judge is what we say should apply, assisted by two to 16 others. Many of the arguments I have heard suggest that members have not grasped the bill in any way, at all.

Of course, even Mr Finlayson, when he was speaking in this House on 21 May—and his speech appears in Hansard at page 16213—made the point, quite correctly, that what we have before us is a commission of inquiry. The Waitangi Tribunal is not a court. It does not make binding decisions; it is merely a commission of inquiry that gathers information and can then make a recommendation. Of course, in doing so it must have expertise in the areas concerned, and we are all in agreement with that. Mr Finlayson made a rather specious comment in his speech as to whether the person should be an accountant or a teacher. Obviously he has not read the bill very well, because we have made it clear that the person has to be a retired High Court judge, as is currently the case, or a retired Māori Land Court judge. As far as the second point that Mr Finlayson and other members have raised is concerned—and they have quite properly raised this point, because there was reference to the conflict of interest that might arise—Mr Finlayson in his speech, at page 16213, agrees that there can be a potential conflict of interest. I am concentrating on this speech because it has been made by a lawyer, and he should have thought these comments through clearly.

When we talk about conflicts of interest, and current judicial officers being involved in the Waitangi Tribunal, members have said that no one has ever complained about the current holders of the positions. Well, I have a letter here in front of me from a distinguished person. He mentioned that he heard Pita Paraone speaking, and said: “I express support for removing judges from the Waitangi Tribunal … and I found that in his area of New Zealand it is not well serviced by the Maori Land Court judges. This is because of the time that has been spent on Waitangi Tribunal hearings, so judges often come down to us totally ill prepared, having not even read court files till the morning of the hearing. Oh well, that’s what they expect in that part of New Zealand.”

One of the problems with the Māori Land Court judges, or even if a High Court judge was the chairperson concerned, is that if they are busy doing other Waitangi Tribunal work, they have to go back and do their Māori Land Court work. Well, they do not even prepare properly for the Māori Land Court work, according to this person who has written to New Zealand First.

So clearly in that respect, if we had a retired judge, he or she would be able to give his or her whole time to the position, rather than be a part-time worker, judge, or chairperson. We want a full-time person involved in the Waitangi Tribunal. We have the greatest respect for the work it does, which is why we want better quality time available for the person who chairs the Waitangi Tribunal. That does not seem to have been accepted by the other parties in this House. We are disappointed that the other parties in this House do not want to see a full-time chairperson of the Waitangi Tribunal. A full-time person would give all the time and devotion to the job that a full-time person can. A part-timer who is involved in things that might create potential conflicts of interest can clearly not do the job as well. New Zealand First wants to see the best possible representative as chairperson on the tribunal.

As far as some of the other issues are concerned, I think I have covered them. Once again I thank all members of the House for the contributions they have made, although I thought that the Māori Party was a little bit childish and repetitious, and clearly did not understand the situation. Finally, I was concerned at the comments made about the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill. If members could have just worked out that the only words being removed were “the principles of”, and that the words “Treaty of Waitangi” still stayed, then they would have had clarification. Thank you.

NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) : I move, That the Waste Minimisation (Solids) Bill be now read a second time. It is 2 years and 4 days since this bill had its first reading, but that is not a record. The Criminal Procedure Bill has been languishing for twice as long. But this bill has not been like Sleeping Beauty, waiting for the National Party kiss of life.

In my first reading speech I said I looked forward to engaging with other political parties, with the public, and with different sectoral groups to make this bill as effective, practicable, and achievable as possible, and that has been the strategy. After the bill passed its first reading I went on a Zero Heroes waste tour to get out and talk to people surfing the bow wave of change in resource recovery, as well as some who might better be described as barnacles on the bum of change. The general response was positive, as much for the opportunity to talk about waste as about the bill itself. Generally, most people agreed with the bill’s objectives and liked some parts of it. Few people liked all of it and everyone disagreed about what the good bits were.

There were notable exceptions to that positive response. The New Plymouth Chamber of Commerce refused even to meet me because apparently it had nothing to learn, and it seems extraordinary to me that apparent grown-ups would prefer ignorance to knowledge. But, in any case, I met with many businesses, from Foxton Fizz to Coca-Cola Amatil. I met with councils and recyclers, with the aim of explaining what the bill does, and encouraging people to have their say. I particularly acknowledge those organisations and people that connected me into their networks—in particular, the Community Recycling Network, various council waste forums—especially in Auckland, Wellington, and the Waikato—the Packaging Council, the Waste Management Institute of New Zealand (wasteMINZ), and the New Zealand Business Council for Sustainable Development. I especially acknowledge Rob Fenwick, whose recognition in the honours list I think is well deserved. I also thank Laura Palmer for taking me around recycling operations so that I could grasp the practical realities of recycling and resource recovery.

As a result of the 316 submissions on the bill, I, along with Quentin Duthie and Chris Teo-Sherrell, negotiated a Supplementary Order Paper with a succession of Ministers for the Environment. David Benson-Pope, David Parker, and Trevor Mallard have all had a hand in it, which means, of course, that the Green Party can take all the credit for the good bits and blame the Ministers for the bad bits—because how would anyone know? That Supplementary Order Paper was introduced to the select committee in September last year. It went out for a second round of consultation, and 125 submissions were received.

The Supplementary Order Paper makes significant amendments, but in essence it keeps the bones of the original bill and alters the flesh. It retains the financial driver of the original bill—the levy on waste going to landfill. It is a blunt attempt at a pigovian tax, to internalise environmental externalities. The New Zealand Business Council for Sustainable Development suggested that it would take a levy of around $30 a tonne to do that. The bill starts at $10 a tonne, with a review after 2 years and then reviews at least every 3 years, and there is a widespread expectation that the levy will rise to around $30. The fund generated by the levy will be split 50:50 between local authorities and a national contestable fund. It can be spent only on waste minimisation initiatives, and there are powers to withhold funds from councils if the money is being diverted to other things. This money will help to make recycling more available through research, seed funding, capital investment, and the like, and also fund better public information about how to recycle, because New Zealanders want to recycle.

Supplementary Order Paper 150 renames “extended producer responsibility” as “product stewardship”, which implies a more shared responsibility. Like the original bill, it makes it mandatory to participate in product stewardship—at least for some products—but it allows industry to design the scheme to meet set targets, because that is how compliance costs are reduced. Under the Supplementary Order Paper, the Minister will designate a list of priority products that require product stewardship. That list will be subject to public consultation, but might include things like e-waste, compact fluorescent light bulbs, waste oil, agricultural chemicals, and things like that. The bill offers a range of regulatory mechanisms to underpin any scheme, such as front-end levies, mandatory take-back schemes, or the ban of certain items from landfills. The idea of product stewardship is not just to increase recycling but to drive design change to reduce the amount of waste being produced in the first place.

The Supplementary Order Paper changes the Waste Minimisation Authority to a Waste Advisory Board. Its functions are more limited than those in the original bill, but it will give independent advice to the Minister on things like the deciding of priority products, guidelines for product stewardship schemes, the setting of regulations for product stewardship schemes, a review of the landfill levy, and criteria for allocating the contestable fund.

Finally, the Supplementary Order Paper removes provisions around mandatory waste minimisation plans, public procurement, and the setting up of waste control authorities, but provides for greater data collection.

The result of all those changes that have been adopted by the Local Government and Environment Committee, plus the further amendments that the committee made, means that this bill, which passed its first reading with 68 votes to 51, now has almost unanimous support across the House. I thank the Ministry for the Environment and the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment for their excellent advice to the committee, and I especially thank the members of the Local Government and Environment Committee, who heard two rounds of submissions and grappled with very difficult and complex issues. The experience of the Hon Marian Hobbs as Minister for the Environment was invaluable in sifting the bull from the crap. Mark Blumsky brought a wealth of experience in local government. Nicky Wagner approached the issues with intelligence and enthusiasm. Steve Chadwick, and later Moana Mackey, chaired the committee with skill, and John Carter had a road to Damascus experience and almost convinced us to rename the bill the “Resource Recovery Bill”. But I told Mr Carter that he would have to watch his language if he wanted to join the Green Party.

The committee looked at container deposit legislation but was not in a position to resolve it, despite very strong submissions from people like Warren Snow and the Problem Gambling Foundation. I wrote to the Minister for the Environment, Trevor Mallard, suggesting that the Waste Advisory Board might look at container deposit legislation. He responded that the Ministry for the Environment might commission an independent analysis of container deposit legislation, and that that could usefully be reviewed by the Waste Advisory Board. I thank him for that.

In addition, since the select committee reported, a number of concerns have been raised. Some of them were adequately dealt with at the committee. Some of them are those of submitters who did not win their battles at the select committee stage and want to come back for another go. But there are some issues that do need further work and thought, and it may be that we will require some more Supplementary Order Papers at the Committee stage. I want to assure submitters and people who have made those points that although I will not be the member in the chair during the Committee stage of this bill—I will be leaving Parliament next week—I intend to remain involved in the development of the bill.

I have always said that the bill needed amending from Mike Ward’s original proposal. That is no criticism of him; it is the nature of members’ bills. Although the outcome would have looked a little different had it only been up to me, the reality is that it was not. This is the result of negotiation and compromise. Even so, if passed, this will be the most significant waste legislation this Parliament has enacted. It is not a magic bullet. It is not the single solution to our waste problem. This bill is about providing opportunities and a framework within which individuals, communities, business, and the public sector can make a difference by getting involved in the public consultation and by making use of the opportunities that the bill provides. I am strongly of the belief that this bill will be a major step forward, and I am very proud to have brought it this far.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Otago) : I rise to support the second reading of this Waste Minimisation (Solids) Bill. I thank Nandor Tanczos for his kind words with regard to the members of the Local Government and Environment Committee, and note that it is sad that Nicky Wagner, who sat in on the committee on my behalf, is not here tonight to take part in the debate.

Dr Richard Worth: Oh, heartbroken!

JACQUI DEAN: Well, I am here, so it is all right. The original bill has been substantially rewritten, and most of the comments I make will relate to Supplementary Order Paper 150. The new bill is the result of two lengthy submission processes, and I sat in on some of those meetings. Also, the Regulations Review Committee reviewed the bill and suggested some technical changes to it. Many of the provisions that National originally opposed in this bill—things like the highly prescriptive requirements of compulsory waste plans, which I could see from a mile off were going to be unworkable; detailed consumer information, where again too much detail was required; and the complex and expensive bureaucratic layers of administration—have been omitted from the bill. It has to be said that the Supplementary Order Paper has generally been positively received by many members of the public. Of the 125 submitters, only 8 percent opposed the Supplementary Order Paper, 22 percent were in outright support of it, and 61 supported it with some amendments. I have to say that when I was sitting on the Local Government and Environment Committee, the committee generally viewed the process with a good deal of goodwill and had an honest working-together attitude, which is something to be much encouraged sometimes, I would have thought.

There is much concern in the community, of course, about the management of waste, and businesses are well aware of the high public expectations that are held in this area. A lot or work has been done on the Supplementary Order Paper, and the unacceptable parts of the bill have been dumped. It is worth noting that voluntary product stewardship schemes already exist—for example, Fisher and Paykel have such a scheme as, of course, part of the packaging accord. Business as a whole is keen to retain the voluntary nature of these product stewardship schemes. This is possible even for priority products as long as the schemes are effective and agreed targets are reached. There seems to be an acceptance of the need for a waste levy, and at the rate set at $10 a tonne it will be a less than significant cost to individuals and businesses. Other countries have legislated for large mandatory increases. This bill allows for an increase to the levy following a review of its effectiveness, and that can take place after 2 years.

The community, by and large, and local government support this bill, and, in its new form, even business is beginning to accept that its time has come. The purpose of the bill is to protect the environment from harm and to provide environmental, social, and economic benefits by encouraging more effective use of materials, a reduction in waste, and good, careful disposal of waste. It is good to note that it aligns directly with National’s Bluegreen Vision for New Zealand. I know that members of the Government who closely read our blue-green vision policy document will only fall into agreement with me on that point.

The bill contains several major issues. The first one is product stewardship, and the bill provides accreditation and also regulatory processes to encourage and foster product stewardship schemes. These schemes will take responsibility for the environmental impacts of disposing of a product after its useful life. By that I mean the collection and disposal of used oil and things like safe disposal of electronic waste. Many of these schemes, again, already exist voluntarily, but legislative backing will get rid of the free-rider problem.

Another aspect is priority products. This aspect provides criteria for identifying priority products, which include environmental harm from disposal. Public concern, identified benefits from reuse, recycling, recovery, or treatment of that product, which means that the biggest problem products get dealt with first, and an accredited product stewardship scheme must be developed for all priority products. Again, business generally prefers voluntary options in this, and these may be accredited if they meet accepted targets.

I move on to the waste disposal levy. This enables a levy of $10 per tonne to be placed on all waste going to landfill. It is estimated that this will collect approximately $30 million per annum. The waste disposal levy is user-pays; it is a pricing mechanism used as an incentive to divert waste. It is seen as a fairer way to fund waste minimisation projects than the rather blunter tool of using local body rates. The revenue from this waste disposal levy will be split—50 percent to territorial local authorities on a per capita basis, to be spent on waste minimisation projects, as identified in their waste management and minimisation plans, and the other 50 percent as a contestable fund to fund waste minimisation projects.

I turn to the commentary on the bill under the heading “Waste Disposal Levy”. The select committee states: “We consider this lower figure adequate initially, as it will take time for worthwhile schemes for waste reduction to attract funding through the levy fund.” I would have to take a bit of issue with that statement on behalf of the committee, because actually there are a lot of worthwhile schemes already in existence in New Zealand. If I just turn to my own electorate in the South Island, I tell members that the Waitaki Resource Recovery Park is leading the country in resource recovery. In fact, it does not call it waste; it calls it a resource. That is the philosophy that underlies the work it does. It is supported wholeheartedly by the local and wider community, to the extent that there is a group up in Kurow manned by volunteers who are also very passionate about resource recovery. There is also a number of waste-buster schemes in other parts of my electorate alone. It would be fair to say that these worthwhile schemes not only do not need time to get ready to apply for levy monies but, in fact, have been said to be leading this whole process. So if I disagree on any point it is that one.

Another aspect is the Waste Advisory Board. The bill provides for the establishment of a Waste Advisory Board of four to eight members, it specifies how those members are appointed, and it deals with its operations. The board will provide guidance and independent expert advice to the ministry and to the Minister.

Let us move on to territorial local authority responsibilities. The bill provides for the adoption by territorial local authorities of waste management and minimisation plans to promote effective and efficient waste management and minimisation in their districts. Well, that is all well and good, but a number of territorial local authorities are also undertaking these plans. One concern I would have is that the provisions in this bill, should it become law, will require territorial local authorities to revisit those plans. Although I know local government in New Zealand is in support of this bill, I would hate to think there was any unnecessary cost imposed on local authorities due to the requirement to develop yet another plan. That would be a reservation I have. Provision is made for public consultation in preparing these plans, and in a sector that is well and truly consulted on an ongoing basis this will provide yet another opportunity for the public to well and truly have its say and get in behind waste minimisation.

In conclusion, National supports the Waste Minimisation (Solids) Bill in the name of Nandor Tanczos with a few reservations, noting that the aims of the bill align with National’s blue-green policy on the environment, and we are pleased that a number of amendments have been made to the bill that reflect National’s position. Thank you.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for the Environment) : I speak in support of the Waste Minimisation (Solids) Bill, which I note has been returned to the House with unanimous support. I thank the Greens, especially the departing member Nandor Tanczos, and the Local Government and Environment Committee, which put in a lot of hard work on the bill, and considered over 300—

Nathan Guy: You’re not leaving, are you, Trev?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I think the member who was beaten by the schoolboy from Otaki had better be quiet; I would still be embarrassed if I were that member.

The select committee considered over 300 submissions on the bill, and another 125 on the Supplementary Order Paper. The result of that effort is legislation that is more workable and pragmatic. The Government wants this nation to be sustainable. The passing of this new waste minimisation legislation will help that to occur. It fits in with other work that the Labour-led Government is doing around fresh water, amongst other things.

Briefly, this bill puts a levy on all waste disposal for landfill. It is initially set at $10 per tonne. I think it is fair to say that that amount is designed to set up the system, and that at some stage it will go to a more realistic level. Revenue from the levy will be used to help communities and businesses address waste issues. The bill helps, and where necessary makes, producers, brand owners, importers, retailers, consumers, and other parties take responsibility for the environmental effects of their products. It allows for regulations to be made on reporting on waste by territorial local authorities and by operators of landfills and recycling facilities, to improve information on waste. This is an area where a lot of work needs to be done. The bill clarifies the roles and responsibilities of local authorities in respect of waste minimisation, and it introduces a new board to give independent advice to me, as the Minister for the Environment, on waste minimisation matters.

As part of the select committee process, and following feedback from submitters, the bill now defines “waste” and gives it a broad meaning. It covers every item that is no longer wanted for its original purpose and, were it not for waste minimisation initiatives such as recycling, would be thrown away. Industry submitters proposed a narrower definition that would confine “waste” to materials that are landfill. Industry stakeholders consider that defining waste broadly gives territorial authorities the ability to obtain commercially sensitive information from the recycling industry about the source and destination of recyclable material. But the bill now restricts the ability of territorial authorities to obtain the information.

The process for developing waste management and minimisation plans and the content of the plans have also been significantly changed as a result of the select committee process. Territorial local authorities must now have regard for the New Zealand Waste Strategy or other Government policies on waste management and minimisation. This will ensure that plans have a degree of national consistency, and will assist with achieving the goals of the Waste Strategy. The strategy provides actions and targets that territorial authorities can adopt in order to address waste issues. The authorities will need to carry out an assessment of their current and future waste services in their districts. The requirement to carry out an assessment of services is already contained in the Local Government Act 2002. It is now broadened so that the authorities carry out an assessment of recycling, recovery, and treatment services as well as collection and disposal.

The Government has been focusing on waste minimisation for some time, as the member in the Chair, Marian Hobbs, is well aware. When the Waste Strategy was launched in 2002 it set a new direction for minimising waste and for improving waste recovery. It is a programme of actions for the medium term, and also has some far-reaching commitments. I am pleased to inform the House that since 2002 good progress has been made. However, there are still aspects of waste where further progress is needed in order to meet those commitments. Waste minimisation in New Zealand has been based on voluntary initiatives; to move towards zero waste we need a more concerted effort.

The bill intends to significantly reduce the amount of waste generated and disposed of, and to lessen its environmental harm. It also aims to benefit our economy by encouraging better use of materials throughout a product’s life cycle, promoting domestic reprocessing of recovered materials, and providing more employment. I must say that there already are some very good examples out there, and I compliment in particular the work that has been done in Canterbury. It is led by the Christchurch City Council, but is done cooperatively on a regional basis. The participants’ ability to reduce waste to landfill by good recycling—the work that they are doing in the glass area is superb—makes them a shining example of what can already be done. If that can be further expanded, then that will be good.

Product stewardship proposes to make producers, importers, retailers, consumers, and other parties take responsibility for the environmental effects of products. It is a tool to greatly improve how we deal with some of the more difficult forms of waste, such as electronic goods. A Green Ribbon Award was recently given to eDay, which is run by Computer Access; it has been giving some very good leadership in this area. The bill will assist and recognise businesses that develop voluntary product stewardship schemes, and enable them to prove that they are taking steps to minimise environmental impacts from the manufacture, use, and disposal of their product. There will be some issues to work through around the number of areas that we focus on initially. The question is whether we go wide and shallow or narrow and deep. My inclination is that we should focus on where we can make some big gains. Those areas may have a little bit more focus than some people would like, and some areas will be brought in earlier than others, but I think that is appropriate.

The bill will provide benefits that go beyond reducing what we throw away. It will provide economic incentives and rewards for those who do the right thing. Businesses, councils, and the public will find that reducing waste saves money. If less material is needed in the first place, greenhouse gas emissions are reduced and new business opportunities are created. In short, this bill provides the opportunity to deal with waste in a smart and sustainable way. The Government is pleased to support it.

I say to Mr Tanczos—this is probably the last occasion that I can do this within the House—that members on this side of the House appreciate not only the way that he has dealt with this legislation but the contribution he has made to Parliament generally in the time he has been here. The fact that he has been able to work with a range of parties on this legislation, and to bring people together, I think is an indication of the way that he has worked in Parliament generally. I thank him for doing that, and for making a contribution over a period of time. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) : I do not intend to take a long call, because New Zealand First was not represented on the Local Government and Environment Committee and therefore did not play an active part in shaping the Waste Minimisation (Solids) Bill. But we are concerned about the bill. When the bill was sent to the select committee it was an example of bureaucracy gone mad, but, as I recall, we supported it going to the committee because we thought that the principles behind it needed to be discussed. As I recall, the National Party had a similar view to us at that point in time. I note that its members have now changed their minds, although Jacqui Dean did indicate that she still had some concerns.

Members of the public have contacted various members of New Zealand First since the bill emerged from the Local Government and Environment Committee, and they have outlined a number of serious concerns. We note that the initial bill has virtually been ditched. A significant number of pages have been deleted, a significant number of pages have been inserted, and, on top of that, there is a Supplementary Order Paper of some 40 pages, including the explanatory note. We are not convinced that the select committee has it right. We looked at the membership of that committee and tried to work out who was on it on a permanent basis—it seems to be a never-ending rotating list. I do not know how many times the committee membership has been rotated, but there was a very long list of members.

At this point in time New Zealand First will be opposing this bill. We will listen with interest to the debate when the bill reaches the Committee stage. We respect the member who put up the bill, Nandor Tanczos. We had some informal, private discussions with him, and we found that his intentions were good. We are not against what is intended, but we are really concerned that the methodology of addressing the problem is not yet fine-tuned enough. One of the people who made a representation to us indicated that charges for disposing waste are likely to give an incentive for people to put more waste on the roadside and in the hedgerows. I do not know whether that will occur, but there is a concern that we might well be pricing out of the market—if that is the right terminology—the incentive to dispose of waste in the proper areas. The suggestion put to us is that there will be a perverse incentive created to dump rubbish in hedgerows or down banks, and what have you. We hope that will not occur, but we have concerns. Respectable people in the community have raised serious concerns with us, so at this point in time we will oppose the bill.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) : Tēnā koe, Madam Assistant Speaker, kia ora tātou katoa, i tēnei pō. Last night my colleague Dr Pita Sharples shared with the House his knowledge about the essential importance of whakapapa to tangata whenua, to te iwi Māori. In my case, Ngāti Rangiwewehi, that whakapapa includes our taniwha Pekehaua, central in our understanding about who we are and where we come from: ko Pekehaua te taniwha, ko Ngāti Rangiwewehi te iwi.

[Pekehua is the deity and Ngāti Rangiwewehi is the people.]

The Taniwha Springs, the Awahou River—kia ora—are a significant part of our history, and we regard these springs as our taonga over which we exercise rangatiratanga ownership and control. As Ngāhihi Bidois told the Waitangi Tribunal recently, they are intertwined in our hearts and minds and culture as inseparable taonga of Ngāti Rangiwewehi.

Reference to pepeha or proverbial statements or sayings, signals, if you like, a respect for people, for the resource, and for the environment. As Ngāti Rangiwewehi we take our role as tangata whenua, as kaitiaki, very seriously indeed, as do all whānau, hapū, and iwi across Aotearoa. Tangata whenua, te iwi Māori, believe that we have a vital role as kaitiaki, as guardians over Papatūānuku—Mother Earth. Across the generations we have been linked as indigenous peoples of the land. Our oral traditions, our pakiwaitara, our pātere, our ngeri, connect us to the land, water, and air. Our environments are integrated.

Because of our customary guardianship of our environmental and cultural heritage we feel very strongly the responsibility to ensure that traditional ecological values are upheld. We are always mindful that although legislative actions have impacted negatively on the legal ownership of our traditional lands, we continue to maintain mana whenua over them, including all resources as guaranteed by Te Tiriti o Waitangi. But the good news is that the protection, management, and development of natural and physical resources is not an exclusive responsibility. In the spirit of meaningful partnership articulated in Te Tiriti o Waitangi, the Māori Party welcomes the advances made by our brother here, Nandor, in bringing this Waste Minimisation (Solids) Bill to this House.

The bottom line for us all is that we know that if waste disposal reduces or destroys the life-supporting capacity of soils, it damages the mauri, the life essence, of the whenua. The disposal of solid waste must be done in such as way as to keep the waste, and leaching from waste, out of water, whether it be surface, ground, or coastal. Can I also say that our view is that refuse disposal facilities must not be sited on areas of cultural or historical value such as wāhi tapu—that is a no-no, and discussion with tangata whenua is, in fact, a yes-yes.

The Māori Party was very happy to support the first reading of the bill. We saw the intention of the bill as being about protecting the environment, and the principle of the reduction of waste at its source is a benchmark position that could influence households, businesses, and public organisations. With the increasing strain across our environments it is imperative that sound waste-management strategies are adopted across all levels. The Māori Party believes in the value of principles such as whakaiti iho, whakamahia anō, whakahou, and āraitanga: reduce, reuse, recycle, and prevent.

These are objectives we can all live by and, unlike the emissions trading scheme, the original framework for this bill fairly and squarely encourages producer responsibility for waste minimisation. It urges that organisations adopt waste minimisation plans over the next 10 years and that a central agency, the Waste Minimisation Authority, would facilitate the move to a minimal waste society. The roles of local and regional authorities regarding waste minimisation and management would be clearly specified and enforced through lawmaking and licensing provisions. All organisations, including Ngāti Rangiwewehi, would be challenged to establish objectives that are measurable and achievable, and to accord priority to purchasing decisions that decrease waste or enable recycling.

Just to get some idea about the scale of what we are talking about, I thought the submission from Rachael Goddard, environmental manager and environmental lecturer, put it all in perspective. She said New Zealand is one of the highest producers of rubbish in the world next to the USA: 189, 000 tonnes of plastic is dumped in landfills each year. We discard 22 million plastic bags each week. Roughly, every child, man, and woman in Aotearoa chucks away five plastic bags a week, every week. Put simply, our waste problem is huge and growing. We need to set manageable targets for waste minimisation, hazardous wastes, and waste disposal, including paying particular attention to contaminated sites, construction and demolition waste, and, indeed, trade wastes.

Although recycling is good, it requires significant energy to maintain. A stronger proposition is to design better products for minimal waste. By that, we mean to design products that last, and products with minimal packaging, and to learn how to use resources more efficiently so as to produce more with less. It could be as simple as doing what they do in Ireland, South Africa, and Bangladesh, I understand, which is to ban plastic bags, or it could be more of a need to educate people to purchase better and to consume less.

The key to change is in understanding how we got to the point we have, in silently melding into practices that damage Papatūānuku and the mauri, or life force, around us. Environmental degradation is born from a lack of understanding, so the solutions lie in having an education campaign, alongside targets and measures to encourage waste minimisation and to reduce waste disposal.

A critical component of such a campaign might be active engagement with tangata whenua, iwi and hapū, or marae ohu groups. Iwi must be consulted and their views taken into account before targets and guidelines are set. Tangata whenua could be invited to form monitoring groups. Tangata whenua could nominate cultural advisers to assist local government in scheme formulation and resource consent projects. The thing is that if we really do care about our environment, then we must demonstrate the care and the respect it requires. Ki te pai te manaaki, ka manaakitia.

[If it is looked after well, it will serve one well in return.]

But here is the interesting thing: although whānau, hapū, and iwi are themselves looking at natural treatment systems and investigating future technologies—at waste reduction at source, at Papatūānuku passages; that is, using stones and rock channels in beds as a mediating force—the changes that have ended up changing the Local Government and Environment Committee report have reduced the ownership and the accountability of the problem. In fact, just like the changes made to the emissions trading scheme, the parts that sought to encourage behavioural change have been removed from the bill. Supplementary Order Paper 150 has changed the bill substantially, removing the waste minimisation plans of organisations, abolishing the waste minimisation authority before it even got going, and deleting the target dates for waste reduction goals.

Despite significant support for the bill from the bulk of the 316 submissions, the proposed legislation is now diluted and simplified to such an extent that there is little to object to, but equally there is little in it to make very much of a difference. The sad thing is that there is actually a lot of public support for this bill, which was not noted by the select committee. The Government has listened to the cost concerns of councils and it has gone with a watered-down approach that will reduce the costs and the compliance. This Government has been consistent, in that it will water down any legislation that takes seriously the protection of the environment. The waste disposal levy has been reduced from $25 per tonne to $10 per tonne, targets and dates have been taken out, the implementation and monitoring of plans have been removed, and producer responsibility has now been weakened to include a measure of voluntary participation.

We believe that Māori traditions such as kaitiakitanga have much to offer in relation to waste minimisation and care for the environment. Tangata whenua live by a relationship that is a symbiotic one—a relationship of mutual benefit. Pouwhenua, the prestige of the land, depends on human activity and the environment for sustenance. We all have a duty to protect the mauri, to treasure the land, the water, the air, and the flora and fauna, as ngā taonga tuku iho—treasures handed down. The Māori Party will support this bill at its second reading, because, in essence, it is better than doing nothing, but we are greatly disappointed that the goal envisioned by Nandor Tanczos of having a waste-free Aotearoa by 2020 will not be greatly advanced by this bill at this point in time.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) : National is supporting this Waste Minimisation (Solids) Bill, after opposing it quite vigorously at its first reading. I acknowledge Nandor Tanczos and also Mike Ward, who was the original sponsor of the bill. The concern National had about the original waste minimisation bill was that it created a very large bureaucracy—a bureaucracy that involved every business and organisation in New Zealand developing a waste plan, that waste plan having to be approved by a territorial authority as being consistent with its own district plan, that district plan having to be consistent with regional plans, and then that regional plan having to be consistent with national plans. That whole plethora of plans took a very regulated approach to the challenge around waste, and National believes that it would have added more waste and more paperwork than the waste reduction it would have achieved.

I have to say that out of all the select committees I have worked on, working on the Local Government and Environment Committee on this bill has been a pleasure. There has been a genuine process of engagement, with respective parties trying to do something of good in this area of waste management, and a willingness on the part of all parties to do a bit of compromising in order to try to come up with something that is workable.

In 2006 National published A Bluegreen Vision for New Zealand, and the approach we took in that document was that the real key to getting good decisions around waste was accurate price signals. You see, for years councils have effectively subsidised waste. Councils have said that they do not want people dumping rubbish on the roadside or at the beach, so they rate all constituents and, whether or not they are good recyclers, they are all forced to pay for the council landfill. National is of the view that that approach is flawed, and does not actually provide the encouragement and the economic incentive for people to take a more responsible approach to the environment. It will not surprise members to hear that National is a party that is cautious of new levies, new taxes, and new ways of putting charges on people, so they may be asking why the National Party is supporting a waste levy. Well, I will tell members why very simply: National supports user-pays. We also support “polluter pays”—that is, well-targeted taxes. Rather than base payments for local authority’s waste services on the size of a section or the value of a property, which is the way it works at the moment, we believe that it is fairer to charge people for their waste services based on the amount of waste they produce.

Peter Brown: Poll tax.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I heard the New Zealand First member speaking earlier. New Zealand First members said that their worry was that if we were to charge people properly for their waste, then they would only dump it irresponsibly. I have to say to New Zealand First that that has been the approach taken by councils for decades in using ratepayer funds to subsidise landfills. It is a flawed approach. It is an approach that effectively subsidises environmental degradation and subsidises the waste stream. What is good about this bill is that it says the user pays—those who produce more waste should pay more.

It is National’s view that a really exciting revolution is taking place out there in waste services. If members were to go out there, even to very small communities, they would be surprised at the number of innovative businesses that are finding new ways of using the waste stream for quite productive purposes. A further concern for National has been that with that sort of innovation occurring among New Zealanders without Government interference, we do not want a waste minimisation bill that will either provide a disincentive or get in the way of councils and small businesses doing the right thing about waste. We are satisfied that with the way this bill has been structured, it will not be a discouragement to those who are innovators. In fact, our view is that we want to make sure that the waste levy is used for genuine recycling without discriminating against private enterprise providers, as compared with public or community providers of recycling and reusing waste services.

I also endorse the concept in this bill of extended producer responsibility. We all know that whether we use a cellphone, a car, or a whole number of products, we would be able to recycle so much more if the original designer and engineer had thought about how we might be able to recycle the natural resources contained in that product. Again I have to say that I have been quite impressed that there is an increasing awareness by companies of the need to recycle particular things. I like the idea that a number of cell phone companies provide a free service to take back cell phones and to reuse the natural resources within them to manufacture the next generation. I think we have a way to go with car manufacturing, to make sure we can design cars in such a way that we maximise recycling. In the extended producer responsibility provisions of this bill there is the framework within which we will be able to encourage more of that approach. It is true that National is cautious about regulation in this area, as it can sometimes incur more costs than the benefits that are achieved by it. We will be watching closely the way in which those particular provisions are administered, because they do need to stack up to a cost-benefit test, and some of the changes we were able to achieve in the bill ensure there are some checks on those who, in their enthusiasm for recycling, go beyond the boundaries of what is economic.

New Zealanders—including, interestingly, those in our most rural communities—have often been the leaders in the area of recycling and kerbside collection services. We need to be careful that in passing such legislation we do not override those very good initiatives that have been taken by many councils. That is why National, in response to submissions from councils and from Local Government New Zealand, wanted a less regulated waste-control authority—one that would not be able to dictate to communities as to how they do stuff. We actually support—I can use a very green phrase—an “organic approach” where that sort of community innovation is encouraged and not some sort of central dictate that will have central government telling communities how they can best advance the cause of increasing recycling and reducing the waste stream.

In conclusion, National’s support for this bill shows that as an Opposition—where legislation is done properly through the select committee process, where its sponsor is open to changes and to working with other political parties—National is prepared to back innovative and progressive environmental legislation. Although I accept that emissions trading and climate change is a more challenging issue, I say to this Parliament that if more of the approach that was adopted around this bill was adopted in respect of that legislation, we would be closer to getting a solution and the sort of cross-party dialogue and support that will give longevity to these sorts of measures. This bill is a step in the right direction. New Zealanders want to see real practical measures to tackle the issue of waste. They want to see more recycling. It is National’s view that this bill will try to facilitate that. I say again that it is the economic provisions in this bill that will encourage enterprise, and the taking of a polluter-pays approach that will provide the greatest gains for the environment and a step forward in the way in which New Zealand manages solid waste.

MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) : It is a great pleasure to rise in support of this bill, and I certainly noted the comments of the previous speaker, Nick Smith. I think it is appropriate that I take the opportunity to speak, firstly, because I was on the Local Government and Environment Committee for part of the consideration of this bill. I was personally fascinated by the range of submissions—through that process I came to more fully appreciate the number of enterprises and businesses that are now focused on waste minimisation—and by the number of very, very constructive contributions and suggestions.

Secondly, I want to give a big bouquet to Moana Mackey and the select committee, but the major bouquet tonight is, of course, reserved for Nandor Tanczos. As a Waikato member of Parliament, I say that we are going to be sorry to see him go. I will take an opportunity, within the context of the Standing Orders in speaking to this bill, to give my personal best wishes to him in the next phase of his life.

This bill is a very good example of the significant contribution Nandor Tanczos has made to this place. One does not have to agree with Nandor’s every viewpoint—that is not what democracy is about—but if ever there was a member who made a solid contribution, it is Nandor Tanczos. I say to Nandor that we are very proud to have him as a son of the Waikato. We hope he will continue to play a role in our region, but whatever that role and life journey is, we wish him well.

It is no mean achievement for a member’s bill to attract what appears to be the overwhelming support of the House, to be adopted as legislation by the House, and to become part of our country’s law. No doubt in the future this measure will come to be known as Nandor’s bill in school books, in environment classes, and all of that—and so it should be.

I will tell a bit of a story if I may, then I want to highlight and re-emphasise some points in the bill, as the Minister for the Environment did. It is easy to stand in this House and say the right things and what we should be doing as a nation, but I will tell a somewhat funny story. A couple of years ago I put out a media release encouraging people to have compost bins, which is another very practical thing that households can do. My wife is not backward in pointing out some inconvenient truths, and in the end she put the article about the need for recycling on our own kitchen waste bin. She was forever saying: “I’ll tell the Greens. I’ll go and tell Jeanette Fitzsimons on you because you have double standards. You are a hypocrite.” She literally said that—seriously. So in the end she put the article—in which I was quoted as talking about the need for waste minimisation through compost—on to the kitchen bin. It was very interesting, because on several occasions I would go to put in a can, a plastic bottle, or something, and the article was there to remind me.

Although what I am saying is at my own expense, I am making the point that in terms of behaviour and brain-wiring, if that is the term, we have all been wired through different phases and different generations to do those kinds of things without thinking. Hamilton now has—as do other cities—a well-developed recycling system. Over time we develop new habits—it is just a basic, individual thing. The point I am trying to make is that it is easy to stand up and give these speeches about doing these good things, but each of us, individually, has to make our contribution, and there are some very practical things that we can do. In my case, it was somewhat extreme. My spouse was threatening to give a report to my Green friends if I did not change my habits, and I have gone some way towards doing that.

This example is a bit anecdotal, but one can now find oneself going to motels or hotels and being really interested in where the recycling bin is in the unit and being told: “Oh, we’re just managing it for the weekend. What do you mean? What are you talking about?”. I hope this legislation will start to move us forward so that there is a buy-in across the board, not just in terms of what we do in our homes but also in accommodation, which is a very important area, and in the shopping malls and shopping precincts. As I understand this bill, it will be a very practical platform for this exercise. Let us highlight again what the bill does, which is to place a levy on all waste disposed of in a landfill. Revenue from the levy will be used to help communities and businesses address waste issues.

I can tell members another story. It was when Marian Hobbs was the Minister for the Environment. As members will know, in the Waikato we have things such as the tyre mountain. These are horrendous environmental issues. We are a small country that has the second-highest ownership of cars per head—I think we come after the United States. These are major issues. I apologise to Marian Hobbs because I probably gave her a hard time on that issue, but to her great credit she was very understanding and very proactive.

But again what has come out—and Nandor will know about this in terms of the problems that, say, the Waikato District Council has had—is that that was just one example of where these issues were falling between the cracks in relation to what could be done legally in regard to property owners, and so on. At one end we have the extreme situation of the tyre mountain and at the other end the more practical things we can do in our homes.

I note the current Minister for the Environment has also given very, very warm support to the Waste Minimisation (Solids) Bill. The bill also encourages responsibility by producers, brand owners, importers, retailers, consumers, and other parties for the environmental effects of their products. The Local Government and Environment Committee received some really brilliant submissions from producers and manufacturers. I am trying to remember one in particular, and I think it was either electrical goods or to do with motor vehicle production. The manufacturers are looking at the lifetime of a vehicle, from production to the end stage. When people think of places like Turners Auctions, they think they just deal in second-hand cars. When talking to management it was interesting to learn that these people are tuning into the whole life cycle of vehicles.

There are some really good examples now of innovative thinking by businesses. They have come on board. It is fair to say that 20 years ago that would have probably been outside the frame. The bill allows regulation on the reporting of waste in respect of territorial authorities, and for operators of landfalls and recycling facilities, to improve information on waste; and it clarifies the roles and responsibilities of territorial authorities in respect of waste minimisation.

I think Dr Nick Smith made a very valid contribution, if I heard him correctly, about the role of local government and local communities, and those kinds of initiatives. We remember the other practical things, like glass bottles for milk, as they have in the UK even now. We remember when they got rid of our glass milk bottles and gave us plastic and said it would be, dare I say it, plastic fantastic, and no problem. But we remember the mountains of used milk containers, and how many of us dutifully went along to the local school to be part of the recycling effort, but there was nothing beyond that. So that is another example whereby we need a product container—in this case looking at the historical plastic container for milk, which is a good example—that can be used from start to finish; whereby we can recycle and reproduce that item, and not get those mountains of used containers. That is where local communities, and certainly local government and local authorities, can give leadership at a local level in promoting recycling. The work they do with industry is very important. It is hoped that this bill will encourage manufacturers and producers in terms of the kinds of containers they produce.

There was also an interesting submission from people who deal in cosmetics, looking at how some of those people could fall out of the system, because of all those little cosmetics bottles. I use that as an example to show that where an industry plays ball and exceeds the standards, then the industry should be encouraged and rewarded. Obviously, we want to bring in some of these other fringe operators who do not have quite the same standards.

I notice the new board will give the Minister for the Environment independent advice on waste minimisation issues, and, hopefully, the board will have a cross-section of New Zealanders with a cross-section of expertise. In my view, it should not represent narrow sectorial interests, but should realise the degree of talent and experience out there. Again, industry and local government participation is very, very important.

Without further ado, in the brief time I have left, I want sincerely and genuinely to compliment Nandor on this bill. I think this is a fantastic achievement by him. He is a great son of the Waikato. He has made, is making, and will continue to make, a great contribution. If I do not have a chance to say this publicly to Nandor, then I say that we in the Waikato wish him well. This is another example of a very good Waikato MP doing a great job, and I give my compliments to him.

MOANA MACKEY (Labour) : I rise to take a short call on the Waste Minimisation (Solids) Bill, and although I am chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee I want to acknowledge Steve Chadwick, who was the previous chair of the committee and who did the bulk of the work. I have come in at the end of that work, and, apparently, have taken a lot of the credit for it, which I do not deserve. But I want to acknowledge what a good bill this is, and the work that the select committee did on it, which was substantial when one looks at the bill as it was introduced and how it came out. It really was a very good process on the part of our select committee.

I acknowledge all the members of the Local Government and Environment Committee. We worked very, very hard to get this bill reported back to the House within the time frames, because we knew how important this issue was, and we did not want to delay it any further. So I made myself extremely popular, when we had several extra meetings outside of our regular select committee times! I thank all the members, from all parties, who engaged proactively in that process. I acknowledge Nicky Wagner from the National Party, who has a phenomenal amount of knowledge in this area, and who was very constructive on that select committee. I acknowledge my colleague Marian Hobbs, who was also very passionate about this issue and who contributed a lot to the development of this bill. That is not to take away credit from all the other members of the select committee. I know that it is always a danger when one acknowledges some people and does not mention others by name, but all members contributed to this bill.

But, of course, I want to pay particular tribute to Nandor Tanczos. It is fitting that this bill is something he will be remembered for in this Parliament as he leaves, but at the same time it is very sad that he will be leaving us. I hope he can feel very proud of the work that was done on this bill and his contribution in this Parliament, because it has been substantial. Who would have thought that an issue that was not seen as mainstream so many years ago would become very mainstream now, and be embraced by not only so many parties in this House but also so many people across our communities? So I say congratulations to Nandor, and I personally wish him all the best for the future. I am sure he will be very happy, particularly with that gorgeous child of his.

The Waste Minimisation (Solids) Bill is a very good bill, and I thought the Hon Dr Nick Smith made a very good point previously, when he pointed out that provincial and rural communities often have done particularly good jobs at waste minimisation. I think of the Ōpōtiki District Council. It has substantially reduced its waste, yet the kind of perverse outcome of that often has been that it finds it very difficult to find an economic reason for landfills, because it still has some waste that needs to go to landfill, and it finds it very difficult, without combining with huge numbers of other districts in shipping long distances, to be able to meet those economies in a small community. I even think of my own home city of Gisborne, which has significant issues with its landfills, and which ships waste to Hamilton. I think this bill will provide economies that incentivise waste minimisation, and I hope that will be beneficial particularly for those councils that have already made strides in this area.

That brings me on, perhaps prematurely, to one area that was significant during our discussions and that was raised with us by submitters, because we did go back out to submitters and asked them to come back again. I think it is important to acknowledge in the select committee process that we recognise that such a substantial change in the bill should go back out for people to resubmit on, and we did rehear submissions on this bill. One of the things, of course, that was very difficult for a select committee to balance, was where the waste levy money should go. Should it be 100 percent contestable, should it be 100 percent territorial authority, or should it be a mix—somewhere in the middle? That is not an easy balance for a select committee to come up with, because there are very, very strong arguments on both sides of that equation.

For example, as previously said, we have many territorial authorities that have been ahead of the pack and that have done many very, very good things above and beyond that which would be expected of them in their basic duties as a territorial authority. They might rightly ask why they should not be now able to go back and get some funding for a project that they have done above and beyond what every territorial authority has done, but for which now they would be able to go out and apply for funding if they were not doing it already. We had to balance that against other interests that said that if we allow all that money to go to territorial authorities, it will simply be a rates offset—basically they are doing it already, they factored it in already, they have done the costs already for their community, and have decided it is worth it. So if they are given money out of this levy fund, then, basically, they will now be using that to offset rates. That is not an easy balance for a select committee to come to. We took the middle road, and 50 percent goes either way. I think that is appropriate.

We certainly do not want to penalise a lot of those territorial authorities. A number of them are very small and rural, they have been ahead of the charge, and they may want to look at developing further on those programmes. At the same time, we also recognise there are enormous opportunities out there within the private sector for developing waste minimisation.

I am very pleased that the Waste Minimisation (Solids) Bill will get broad support across the House. When I was leaving my office I heard the speech made by Te Ururoa Flavell, who said that this bill was being watered down. I think there is a reality that we have to accept with some of this legislation. I take the example of the per tonne levy on waste disposed in landfills—it was $25 in the original bill, and is now down to $10. The Local Government and Environment Committee was concerned about illegal dumping. We need to be very, very careful when we go into some of these areas that we incentivise behaviour that is good, but do not make it far more attractive to engage in behaviour that is bad. This was another area that was not easy for the select committee to decide a way through, but I think the introduction of a $10-a-tonne levy on waste disposal and landfills is a good middle road. Of course, that levy can be reviewed at any time, if that is deemed appropriate by the Government of the day. I certainly do not see it as watering down the legislation.

In fact, I think the entire select committee process was about aligning this legislation as much as possible with what was already happening, so that we did not disadvantage people who were already doing very good things in this area. Also, it was about making sure we did not introduce more and more layers of compliance for territorial authorities and the private sector. In looking at the role of territorial authorities, it was very clear to me that there was a need for clarification of their role, especially beyond what they carry out during their normal course of business. I believe that the bill achieves that.

Part 7 establishes the Waste Advisory Board. Under Part 2 of the bill as introduced, a Waste Minimisation Authority would have been established, with a far more extensive role than that of the Waste Advisory Board. I think this strikes a very good balance in terms of what we are trying to achieve, and in terms of not introducing more and more layers of compliance for people who are already working in a potentially very difficult area. The select committee had a tendency almost to put too much upon the Waste Advisory Board. We had to keep ourselves in check when considering the role of the board. It is very important that the board is independent. At the end of the day, its role, especially in advising the Minister on key issues, will be crucial to the overall success of the legislation.

I will touch on one other area—the product stewardship schemes. This is a very important area. Those of us on the Finance and Expenditure Committee looking at the emissions trading scheme know how important it is to have good product stewardship schemes in place, especially in terms of refrigeration gases. Gases that are used in the refrigeration industry are quite devastating if they are released into the atmosphere. But if a proper product stewardship scheme is in place, and gases are maintained, those gases have no impact, whatsoever. That is a very real example of how product stewardship schemes are incredibly important. Those gases are hugely more damaging to the environment than other well-known greenhouse gases such as methane and carbon dioxide. Their greenhouse gas impact is many, many times more intense. If we can maintain those gases through good product stewardship schemes, then we will be able to mitigate an awfully large cost to the New Zealand economy and to the world environment.

The idea of making people aware of the exact cost of a product from cradle to grave—including the disposal of the product—is long overdue, and was embraced by a large number of the business people who came to the select committee. They want to make their customers aware that the life of a product has not ended just because a customer has finished with it. Someone needs to pay for that cost, and who should that be? It should probably be the person who has used the product for the entirety of its life.

In finishing, I thank the officials who worked on this bill. They did a fabulous job. They were always able to answer our questions, and they met some very strict deadlines. I acknowledge the sponsor of the bill, Nandor Tanczos, and wish him all the best for the future. I hope this bill has a speedy passage through the House.

JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) : I am delighted to be the final speaker in the second reading debate on the Waste Minimisation (Solids) Bill. I start by congratulating my colleague Nandor Tanczos on the incredible determination he has shown over the last 2 years. He picked up this bill from Mike Ward, who introduced it to Parliament and helped to develop it. When Mike left Parliament the bill was assigned briefly to my late co-leader, Rod Donald, who had always had a passion for waste issues, particularly for deposit return legislation and product stewardship. He held it for a mere 6 weeks, until his death, and then Nandor came into Parliament and picked it up, and he has done all the hard graft on it since then.

Members heard Nandor Tanczos describe how he has been around the country talking to local authorities, to people who operate recycling schemes, to people who get their hands grubby, to people who dump rubbish, and to business—very much to business—to find out how to make the bill more workable. He has also engaged with successive Ministers and officials, and he has drafted very substantial Supplementary Order Papers. In that time, he has shown perseverance, cooperation, and an ability to reach consensus positions, and I congratulate him on that. I am very glad that he has had the opportunity today, just before his departure from Parliament, to see that work come to fruition with the second reading of this bill. I say to Nandor that I am very pleased he is with us tonight. The bill will be taken through the Committee stage by the House’s newest MP, Russel Norman, and if the schedule proceeds as intended, he may in fact be sitting in the Minister’s chair on his second day in Parliament—so things go.

The key issues for a sustainable economy are energy, water, and waste. The Greens introduced New Zealand’s first-ever legislation on energy efficiency and conservation 10 years ago, and it was passed 8 years ago. That legislation has resulted in major changes in the way energy is used in New Zealand, including the introduction of minimum performance standards for products. These products have so far saved consumers $148 million on their power bills, as they have not had to buy lower-performing products.

This bill is the second leg of the trifecta. It is the first substantive bill covering waste management to come to the New Zealand Parliament, having achieved the support of nearly every party here, which is a real achievement. New Zealand is facing severe resource limits. In fact, our economy is bumping up against resource limits all the time, whether they be in terms of oil, water, land, fish, or minerals. It simply does not make sense to throw those resources away after one use when they can be recovered and used again.

We are facing environmental limits in terms of the capacity of the environment to absorb the waste we throw away. Waste is also one of the smaller contributors to climate change, as methane emerges from landfills when organic waste rots anaerobically. There is no waste in nature. Everything goes around in what Barry Commoner described as the closing circle. Over the years it has become more and more clear that if human societies, industries, and economies are to be sustainable in the long term, we have to mimic ecological processes as closely as we can in our production and consumption systems. So closing that circle and providing for resources to be used over and over again is an essential part of living sustainably.

It is now 32 years since I set up the first profitable local authority recycling scheme in New Zealand. It was for the Devonport Borough Council in 1976. I was working for the Environmental Defence Society at the time. I will not go into all the history of it, but the council decided that, instead of contributing to the pollution from the landfill, it was interested in setting up a kerbside recycling scheme, having a composting scheme at the tip for organic waste, and encouraging people to separate their waste. The society wanted to extend the life of its landfill, avoid transport costs, and do the right thing environmentally.

We planned that on a budget of $500. We had no buildings and we had no hard standing. We hired some skips, we had a guy at the gate, and we concentrated on good community information and conversations. We encouraged people to make compost in their own backyards, and many did. We made compost with a front-end loader and shredder in open windrows at the tip site, and it did pretty well. Two-thirds of the material that had been going into the landfill was diverted from the landfill into the recycling scheme, and it made a profit for the council.

Once that was done, I thought: “OK, now we just have to sit back and wait for every other council to adopt it.” But did they? No. There was apparently something special about the people of Devonport that could not be copied anywhere else. One or two councils that did try over-engineered and spent so much capital that they had no chance of ever recovering it, and, of course, they made a loss.

It is a long way from there to here, but we learnt a few things from that process, and I would like to draw the attention of New Zealand First to one of the things we learnt. We put a charge on rubbish bags. We encouraged people to recycle by putting a charge on rubbish bags, which paid for the disposal—user pays—but we did not get an increase in illegal dumping.

Hon Harry Duynhoven: What was the charge?

JEANETTE FITZSIMONS: Illegal dumping had always happened to a small extent, and it did not increase in any way at all. The charge was $2 a bag, which was quite a lot in 1976, and certainly much less than $10 a tonne that is being proposed here. So I do not really think that that argument will hold water.

We also discovered that if we are going to recycle properly, we have to design for reuse and recycling when a product is made. It is no good putting together multiple layers of metal, plastic, cardboard, and wax coatings, and then asking someone to take them apart and do something useful with them. So design for durability, reuse, and recycling has to be built in, and that is what this bill will achieve through the product stewardship scheme.

I am sorry that the Government procurement part of the bill has disappeared. I do think that the Government needs to show leadership. We do have the little waste boxes at the moment as part of the Govt3 programme, and many people have been using those for a long time. [Interruption] I am sorry Rodney is not here to hear this little lecture. There will always be a few laggards and renegades, and they are the ones we have to regulate for. Other people will do it voluntarily. But never mind; there it is.

I would thank all the submitters who made it easier for Nandor to develop this bill in the best direction. I thank the various Ministers who cooperated and other members of the House who have cooperated on the select committee. I thank the National Party for coming to the party after an absolutely scathing attack on the bill during the first reading debate. But National members came to their senses and joined us, and that is just great. I commend this bill to the House. I look forward to its Committee stage, and, once again, I thank Nandor for doing a fine job.

JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) : I move, That the Resource Management (Climate Protection) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. This bill was written at the end of 2004, after the Government had amended the Resource Management Act to remove the powers of regional councils to consider climate change matters when they were issuing air discharge consents and in making regional plans that dealt with air discharge consents. The Government removed from the Act the ability of regional councils to consider climate change because it intended to bring in a carbon charge and believed that a national economic instrument was all that was needed to deal with climate change in New Zealand.

Then it became apparent that the carbon charge might never eventuate, and at the end of 2005 it was dumped. I felt a huge hole had been left in the Resource Management Act because we had neither one thing nor the other, so I introduced this very simple little bill to replace the clauses in the Resource Management Act just as they had been before. I was proved to be right, in that now in 2008 we still have no price on carbon. We do not know whether we are going to get one. But it became clear along the way that even if we do, there is no reason not to give regional councils the power to control carbon emissions as well.

There were 1,925 submissions on the bill to the Local Government and Environment Committee. Admittedly a lot of those were form submissions, but they were nevertheless from people who felt strongly enough to put their name to a piece of paper and support the bill. The vast majority of the submissions did support the bill, and I want to thank all the people who went to the trouble of doing that. They were ordinary people who had just read about the bill, decided it was sensible, and put their name to a form submission, and also people who went to a great deal of trouble to bring us detailed, well-thought-out, and academic submissions.

The bill sat in the select committee for more than 2 years. It was not because it took very long to hear submissions—we actually heard only 33—and it was not the case that the committee gave it a huge amount of consideration either. The delay was because the report back was repeatedly extended. The committee went for repeated extensions because the Government could not make up its mind whether it was going to support the bill. I agreed to those extensions for a while. I was being told that we had to have extensions until it was clear whether we were going to have an emissions trading scheme, or that we had to have extensions until was clear what the emissions trading scheme was going to say. Then, when further extensions were asked for, it became blindingly obvious that the Government had no intention of supporting this bill at any stage and neither did the National Party. At that stage I said no, I would not agree to another extension. I said I thought 2 years was long enough for them to make up their minds, so it was time we brought the bill back to Parliament and they put on the record why it is that they are not supporting it. That is what we are doing tonight.

I disagree with the position that all we need in order to deal with climate change is an economic instrument. I have always disagreed with that position. Putting a price on carbon is a useful thing to do, but we actually have to deal with climate change at every level of the economy. We have to deal with it in regional and local councils, we have to deal with it in businesses, we have to deal with it as individuals, and we have to deal with it internationally. This bill would be a very useful supplement to the price on carbon that we may or may not get.

I will quote from a chapter called “Carbon Neutrality and the Law: the role of the Resource Management Act”, which was written by Klaus Bosselmann, the director of the New Zealand Centre for Environmental Law at the University of Auckland, and a very learned professor at that. He wrote: “The recently announced emissions trading scheme and other proposed policies are insufficient to meet our Kyoto target, let alone to achieve carbon neutrality. The Government must pass the Resource Management (Climate Protection) Amendment Bill 2006, a private member’s bill. We need to develop national environmental standards and/or a national policy statement for achieving carbon neutrality. The purpose of the bill is to once again empower local authorities to consider the effects of greenhouse gases, and in particular CO2, on climate change when writing local plans and granting air discharge consents.” He goes on to say: “The current state of legal affairs is not without irony. While a system of air quality standards has been established, it protects people from certain toxins with an immediate effect on health, but almost completely ignores the biggest threat, climate change.”

Many submitters agreed with that view. Many of the people who disagreed with the bill were those with a vested interest in it not proceeding—those who wanted to get their air discharge consents rather more easily, without having to defend their carbon dioxide emissions, or those who did not want to be involved in the trouble of administering the system. But we had some interesting, very substantial submissions from others. For example, Meridian Energy put it to us that if it wants to build a renewable electricity station, using renewable energy, it has to fight through the Resource Management Act in order to get consent to use its fuel. Whether it wants to use water, air, or geothermal heat, it has to get consent to use that fuel. But if a company wants to build a thermal power station, there is no consent required to use the fuel. Nobody can challenge a company’s right to burn oil, coal, or gas in the way that it is possible to challenge the right to take water or use the wind. Meridian Energy said that that created an un-level playing field, and I agree with that. The removal from the Resource Management Act of the provisions enabling regional councils to consider climate change matters is one of the reasons why there is a problem.

But we are not just talking about power stations here; we are talking about anybody who builds a plant that needs an air discharge consent because the plant will burn fossil fuels. For example, I think of a new Fonterra milk-processing plant that wants to burn coal. One might say that the emissions trading scheme would take care of that. But hang on—Fonterra will be grandparented at the rate of 90 percent, until 2019, for its emissions. It will only have to face the price right at the margin, not for the rest of its emissions, and then that will phase out only by 2030. So for a long, long time companies that build fossil fuel - burning plants will not face the price on more than just the very margin of their emissions. A lot of people have become very concerned about the Genesis-proposed gas-fired power station in Rodney District, which really faces no great obstacle in terms of climate change emissions. The council up there is powerless to look at the fact that the power station would be a very heavy emitter of carbon dioxide.

Some submitters, including the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, who was one of our advisers, suggested that the bill would be strengthened if we added a provision for mandatory national environmental standards to be set for carbon dioxide emissions. As the hearings continued, a kind of consensus developed among many submitters—and even the committee was quite sympathetic to this view—that if we were going to pass the bill, it would be sensible to amend it in order to establish national environmental standards that councils could then use around the country in their land-use planning and in their air discharge consents. Unfortunately, that is not to be, because the committee has decided to recommend against passing the bill, and I think that is unfortunate. Even the Government admits that the emissions trading scheme will reduce emissions by less than 2 percent—less than 2 percent. Putting a price on carbon is a good start, but it will take us only a little bit of the way towards the destination. We need to have a whole lot of other measures that are complementary to that price, if it is actually to work.

Those who submitted against the bill were opposed to it because they said it would be complex and costly. That argument, of course, is used against anything one does that interferes with anything that anybody else wants to do—it will be complex and costly. Well, if people want something that is complex and costly, they should try the emissions trading scheme. It is hard to get much more complex and costly than that. Sometimes a measure that is complex and costly is OK if the outcome that we achieve through it is worth having, and that is what we still have to decide about the emissions trading scheme.

So I will be voting for this bill to proceed, and it is up to the House to decide whether it does so.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) : National understands the frustration that the Green Party has with the lack of progress on the huge issue of climate change over the last 9 years. I remind the Labour members that when they were elected in 1999, they promised to reduce emissions by 20 percent by 2005. But when the records came out for 2005, far from Labour reducing emissions by even 1 or 2 percent, we found emissions had in fact gone up by 15 percent. But not to be outdone by Labour’s promise of a 20 percent reduction in emissions, Helen Clark said the Government would go for a 100 percent reduction in emissions, and said the Government’s programme was for there to be carbon neutrality. Yet in every area of climate change policy over the last 9 years we have seen one policy debacle after another.

We had the energy efficiency strategy that was launched with great bells and whistles in 2001. Not only did that $100 million programme fail but the energy efficiency gains were less than those achieved in the previous 5 years, when we did not have a strategy. Then there was the debacle over the animal emissions levy and the projects to reduce emissions. Another big announcement from the Government was that it would support projects that reduced emissions by tendering carbon credits, but it shut that scheme down. We then had the policy initiative of a carbon tax, which the Government subsequently abandoned. There was an announcement around Switch on the Sunshine, where the Government was going to provide a programme to support the installation of solar water heaters, but within 12 months we saw the first drop in the number of solar water heaters being installed.

So National says to the Green Party that we understand its frustration. There has been one policy debacle after another, and emissions are going through the roof as never before. Interestingly, the rate at which emissions are going up by is even faster than the rate that they were going up by in the 1990s. They were going up by about 700,000 tonnes a year throughout the late 1990s; on average they have been going up by over 1,000,000 tonnes a year in the term of this Government.

If we take our record internationally, we see that the Prime Minister is saying New Zealand is going to be a world leader on climate change. Well, I went to a conference in Bali and numbers were tabled there on how much countries had increased their emissions by. Out of the 42 developed countries that had commitments under the Kyoto Protocol, New Zealand’s numbers were the 38th worst—the 38th worst out of 42 countries. I say to members opposite that talking about Labour being a world leader on climate change is like saying that we are going to go to the Olympics and win gold medals when we have come last in the heats, right across the board, in policy terms.

Let us take another area. Labour says that we will have 90 percent renewables. Well, let us look at Labour’s 9-year record. We see that 75 percent of the new electricity generation built during the term of this Labour Government has been thermal generation. In fact, what is worse, the Government has actually intervened in the market to build thermal stations. It put an electricity levy on every consumer of electricity in order to build a new diesel power plant at Whirinaki, which is currently running at full bore. When it came to Genesis Power, the Government offered to provide a Government guarantee so that the company would build a new gas-fired power station, the biggest new thermal power station built since Huntly was born—the e3p. So National says that Labour's climate change record is awful, and we understand why the Greens wanted to introduce this bill.

However, understanding that is one thing, but making sure the legislation will work is another. Will putting provisions into the Resource Management Act—an Act that has already caused great difficulties for those who want to build new power stations—make a difference? Will it provide the sort of clear policy direction that is needed from this Parliament? National says the intent of the Greens is good, but this is not the right outcome. Let me explain why that is the case. If someone wants to have another car on the road, is it necessary to get a resource consent under the Resource Management Act? No. If a farmer wants to buy another cow to put on the farm, thank goodness the farmer does not need to go through the bureaucracy of getting a new resource consent, yet that animal adds to emissions. If somebody wants to put a gas burner in his or her home, it is not necessary to get a resource consent. So why would we say that in order to manage climate change we will use the blunt and arbitrary tool of the Resource Management Act?

What is more, the reality is that this was the law from 1999-2004. So between 1991 and 2004, when what is in this bill was the law of the land, did it help us to address climate change? No. It only created confusion. All that it did for the Environment Court or a commissioner, when considering a consent of some sort, was to leave the decision makers scratching their heads as to how they could possibly deal with an issue as big and as challenging as global warming and the huge amount of emissions. For instance, if an application is made for a new dairy plant and part of it is a drier, and it includes the burning of natural gas to dry the milk, should the decision makers give it a tick or a cross, as a consequence of making them take into account the effects of climate change? The reality of the milk plant is that the teeny-weeny amount of carbon dioxide it puts into the atmosphere would, in global terms, have a very minimal effect, albeit that globally we do need to address the issue of climate change. So National says this bill is an arbitrary, unfair provision in terms of the way we address climate change. It will have perverse effects. It did not work when this measure was there in the Resource Management Act, and it is the wrong policy instrument.

The right policy instrument for dealing with climate change—as they have in Europe, as they are currently debating in many states of the United States, as the Government in Australia has decided, and as we have decided in New Zealand—is a well-balanced and well-designed emissions trading scheme. That is why National, when the emissions trading bill was before the Finance and Expenditure Committee, had several cracks at trying to advance the development of an emissions trading scheme. Why is that a better instrument? The first thing is that the core concept of a well-balanced emissions trading scheme is that it would treat emissions equally. Whether they come from a car, a power station, a milk-processing facility, or a timber-processing facility, it would treat them equally, which this bill would not do. Furthermore, it is our view that if we can get an emissions trading system right, then it is the least-cost way to deal with the climate change issue.

We are frustrated that for 8 years the Government opposed an emissions trading scheme, and, in the last year, in a moment of panic, it is now trying to rush through Parliament an emissions trading system that has some key flaws. The record of climate change policy shows that this work is hard. It is difficult, and by rushing things we keep getting it wrong and we go backwards. That is why National says—as we said in our 10-page minority report on the emissions trading bill—that on the issue of the emissions trading scheme, yes, we back it, but by goodness we need to take the time and the care to get it right. That is why National says that that the emissions trading legislation needs to be amended. It needs to go back to the select committee. We need to address the major concerns that have quite legitimately been raised by a number of key sectors of the New Zealand economy, because with a well-balanced and well-designed emissions trading scheme, we have the right framework to deal with the enormous challenge of climate change.

This Resource Management (Climate Protection) Amendment Bill is a signal of frustration from the Greens, but it is not the right policy instrument for dealing with such a complex issue as climate change.

PETER BROWN (Whip—NZ First) : I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I did not want to interrupt the member, but I just want him to clarify something he said, because I think he made a mistake. In the Bali figures he quoted, he actually described New Zealand as being the 38th worst country. That makes it the fourth-best out of 42 countries. I think he meant 38th country from the top, did he not, rather than 38th from the bottom?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) : The quote was in terms of an increase in emissions. New Zealand’s were ranked at 38th out of 42, which meant that we are the 38th worst in terms of the growth in emissions in the term of this Government.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.

MOANA MACKEY (Labour) : I am happy to stand up and take a call on the Resource Management (Climate Protection) Amendment Bill. I want to start with the comments made by the Hon Dr Nick Smith. I will start off on a positive note and congratulate him on his impending nuptials, then I will make the comment that it is a little bit galling to be lectured by a member from a party that is only recently a convert to climate change and has a leader who, until very recently, said that he thought climate change was a hoax. Although I have no doubt that the Hon Dr Nick Smith himself is very passionate about these issues and is a believer in them, I suggest very respectfully that he might want to turn round and give that little lecture to a number of the members sitting behind him, including one in particular who, on the emissions trading scheme and during the submissions, showed himself to be very much a sceptic of the phenomenon of climate change. I respectfully say to him that he might want to look within his own party while he is throwing stones at many others.

I am very proud of the commitment that this Labour-led Government has made to climate change policy. It is not an easy area to advance, as we have seen with many different pieces of legislation. Saying we support climate change policy is one thing; actually supporting it when it comes to the House is entirely another.

If we just look at the emissions trading scheme, which was raised by the previous member, we can see his complaints are very reminiscent of a number of the captured interests who came along to our Finance and Expenditure Committee to say that they loved the idea of an emissions trading scheme and they thought it was the only way to go, but that they would never support one when they actually saw it down in words. The Finance and Expenditure Committee, which I am a member of, worked very hard on that scheme, and I believe it will make an enormous difference. It is already being looked at around the world in terms of what we are doing, and I do not accept the response that we should always just copy everything Australia does and never think for ourselves, particularly not when our emissions profile is significantly different from that of Australia. But coming back to this bill, despite that little aside, I do agree with a number of the points that the previous member raised about this bill.

Although I appreciate where this bill is coming from—and, again, this is another bill where as chair of the select committee I came in quite late in the piece—one of my big concerns is the regional inconsistencies that can arise from leaving something as important as this to regional councils. Different regional councils will approach this area in different ways. It is not like it is with us here in Parliament; there is a big concern out there in the general community about climate change, and a genuine desire for politicians to do something about it. A number of our regional councils believe this is something that central government should be doing. They are not saying that nothing should be done about climate change; they are just saying that they do not believe they are the appropriate people to do it. That is something that resonates on the election trail with many voters who believe that this is a national issue that should be approached from a consistent national viewpoint.

I will raise another very important issue. The transport sector is of huge concern when it comes to climate change. Of course, the Resource Management Act has no power to keep cars off the road, and it has no power to promote coastal shipping, rail, or other forms of more carbon-friendly transport. Again, when it comes to agriculture, the Resource Management Act has no power to control the number of stock that are grazed on land, so we see a very genuine imbalance between the different areas that are emitting carbon. Although I genuinely appreciate where this bill is coming from, I do not believe that the final result would be desirable.

I understand the frustration of the member in charge of the bill, Jeanette Fitzsimons, with how long this bill has been at the select committee. She is a former chair of the select committee that was considering the bill, and I do not believe there was any malice in her taking this bill away from the select committee—that was entirely her right. This is a very important issue for us to discuss in the House, and I believe that this debate will be very important in the greater climate change debate. Although I am very sorry that we could not do what she wanted at select committee, and that we were not able to find a way through, I completely appreciate that the number of extensions this bill had already had was significant and that she, as the member in charge of this bill, has used her right to bring this back to the House for debate.

In saying that, we have a number of bills dealing with climate change before many of our select committees. The Local Government and Environment Committee is currently considering the Biofuel Bill. As we have just said, the Finance and Expenditure Committee has reported back the emissions trading scheme bill, and it is generally regarded that the emissions trading scheme would supersede a lot of this legislation. It really is a matter of timing.

The emissions trading scheme bill could have gone to the Local Government and Environment Committee, which perhaps would not have been appropriate because it is a small committee compared with the Finance and Expenditure Committee, but I think there are genuine arguments for a bill like that to go to the Finance and Expenditure Committee, where every party in this House is able to sit in and have its say on it. If this bill had gone to the Local Government and Environment Committee, then perhaps it might have been considered alongside the emissions trading scheme, and that might have given the member in charge of the bill the opportunity to have it heard. Fortunately, that is not the way that it went. We were left with this bill at our committee and we had to decide what to do with it.

The majority of the committee decided that the emissions trading scheme covers most of the areas that this bill covers. A moratorium on new thermal generation for baseload is a very significant step, and something that obviously cuts across a lot of the issues raised in this bill. In saying that, clearly the Resource Management Act considers climate change - related or environmental issues; that is obvious. But Labour members on the committee felt that the danger of regional inconsistencies in the way climate change is dealt with was very real. We did not want to see some regions being penalised for having a very strict interpretation of the law, whereas other regions might decide that they would benefit from that and take those industries into their region because they do not interpret the law quite so strictly. We think that when we are looking at overall, global, or even national greenhouse gas emission reductions, we need to have consistency across the country. There is no point in simply shuffling them between different regional authorities, so that one authority gets emissions down but another authority lifts them by just as much. That does not do anything in terms of our Kyoto Protocol commitment and the monetary commitment we will have to meet if we do not reduce our emissions, or indeed the global emissions, in the environment.

Again, I say that I am disappointed that we could not do more with this bill at the select committee. I would have liked to hold it over for a bit longer at the committee so that it remained live—so that it remained in a position for us to do something with it if members felt that the emissions trading scheme did not quite cover off everything that this bill meant to, or for it to be retired with dignity if the emissions trading scheme did, indeed, cover it all off. But I have entire respect for the decision that the member in charge of the bill has made in bringing it back to the House now. It is an important debate to have and it is one that we are happy to engage in. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) : Before I speak on the Resource Management (Climate Protection) Amendment Bill, I want to clarify what Nick Smith told this House. He told us that the figures he had obtained from the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Bali made New Zealand the 38th worst country. In my language the worst is the worst, the second worst is not quite as bad, and the 38th worst is close to the top if it is out of 42 countries. But I do not think that is what he meant. I think he was saying we were the 38th from the bottom—

Eric Roy: From the top.

PETER BROWN: From the top, close to the bottom—fourth from the bottom. Would members agree with that? That is not 38th worst, is it?

Eric Roy: It can be.

PETER BROWN: It might be down in Southland, I say to Mr Roy, but it certainly is not normally.

Hon Harry Duynhoven: We’re in the southern hemisphere, Pete.

PETER BROWN: Oh, it is the southern hemisphere? There you are—that explains it. No, I have to say that the honourable member Nick Smith is quite confused. He is going to get married, he is engaged to a lovely lady, and he has got all excited about it. Let us put it down to that.

New Zealand First will not be supporting this bill, and I want to read from the report back from the Local Government and Environment Committee. It says under the heading “Submissions opposed to the bill”: “All submissions opposing the bill were substantive, and came from business and industry groups, local government, electricity generators, professionals, and academics, environment and community groups, and one from a transmission network provider. Most submitters considered climate change to be a serious issue, but expressed opposition to the bill because it made climate change a local government responsibility when submitters favoured a national response.” That is our position entirely. I think the member who just resumed her seat indicated that although local government could have control over certain aspects of certain emissions, it cannot have control over the number of cattle on a farm, ships coming into a port, and what have you, and that creates a dual standard.

I understand where the member who is promoting the bill is coming from. I understand the frustration that would result from the bill sitting there for 2 years; I think that is enough to frustrate anybody. But New Zealand First will not be supporting this bill. We believe that the emissions trading scheme legislation that has just emerged from the select committee and is under discussion by the Government and other parties is the way to go when it comes to climate change, emissions, carbon footprints, and all those sorts of things. We want one piece of clear legislation that everybody understands and works in with—that must be the aim of the game, surely. This piecemeal approach will not work and is not acceptable to New Zealand First. We will be opposing this bill.

ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) : In the absence of someone else taking a call I will jump the queue a little bit, but I sense that Mr Deputy Speaker will cut me off about now.

• Debate interrupted.