Volume 615 Week 50 - Thursday 4 March 2004 
Volume 615 Week 50 - Thursday 4 March 2004 
[Volume:615;Page:11581] 
Thursday 4 March 2004 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Slovenia—Minister of Foreign Affairs 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Honourable members I have much pleasure in informing you that His Excellency Dr DimitrijRupel Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Slovenia accompanied by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade is within the precincts of the Chamber. I am sure that you would wish he be welcomed. 
His Excellency Dr DimitrijRupel accompanied by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade entered the Chamber and took seats to the left of the Chair. 
Obituaries 
Hon Arthur Ellis Kinsella 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I regret to inform the House of the death on Thursday 4 March of the Hon Arthur Ellis Kinsella QSO who represented the electorate of Hauraki from 1954 to 1969. He was Minister of Broadcasting from 1960 to 1963 Postmaster-General from 1961 to 1963 and Minister of Education from 1963 to 1969. I desire on behalf of this House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the late former member. 
Honourable members stood as a mark of respect. 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week the House will go into a 1-week adjournment. When the House returns on Tuesday 16 March priority will be given to the third reading of the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill and the remaining stages of the Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill to the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 2) and to the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Transitional Provisions and Controls) Amendment Bill. I will be seeking the support of all parties to take through all stages quickly a Tax Administration Act amendment bill that will enable the Inland Revenue Department to react positively to the situation in flood-affected areas. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 Noting that the progress on the Government’s legislation in the last 4 weeks has been particularly slow can members expect a long dose of urgency at some stage during the next parliamentary session and would the Leader of the House be able to indicate whether he would have support for that urgency to go beyond the standard 6 o’clock on Friday night? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I think reasonable progress has been made in the last 4 weeks without any urgency but the Government has a very busy programme coming up in the next 4-week session so members can anticipate the probability of some urgency in the third week of that session with the intention being to lift the House by 6 o’clock on Friday. 
Speaker’s Rulings 
Questions for Oral Answer—Phrasing of Questions 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I was asked to reflect on a ruling I gave on Tuesday during question time when I ruled out of order the second part of a question by the Hon Bill English. The part of the question that I ruled out of order reads: “… will he continue to obstruct the Official Information Act like the civil servants in the Immigration Service did?”. I said that the member could not impute improper conduct to another member by saying that he did not observe the Official Information Act. I then allowed the member to rephrase his question. 
I stand by my ruling. It is out of order in a question to accuse a member of obstructing the Official Information Act and then to draw a parallel with officials who have been severely criticised in an Ombudsman’s report on that very ground. It was also unnecessary for the member to have asked his question in that way. I note that he successfully rephrased his question when I gave him the opportunity to do. I have to say that I do not consider that the member’s offence was very serious which was why I gave him another chance. The Speaker has to make a number of snap judgments during question time. I went back over this one because I was asked to do so by a senior member but I would prefer to regard these incidents as closed once the House passes on to the next question. 
Questions to Ministers 
Superannuation—Costs 
1. MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What is the estimated increase in cost in New Zealand Superannuation over the next 40 years and what measures has the Government taken to prepare for the increase? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 In 40 years’ time net spending on New Zealand superannuation as a proportion of the gross domestic product will roughly double; increasing from 3.6 percent now to 7.3 percent. The Government is preparing for that increase by setting up the New Zealand Superannuation Fund which according to the latest estimates will contribute around 34.8 percent of total New Zealand superannuation costs. 
Mark Peck 
: Would the Minister tell the House what the purpose of the fund is? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: To ensure that New Zealand superannuation is viable from age 65 at 65 percent of the average wage for a married couple into the future. Otherwise we are asking the generations under 50 to pay for a benefit they will never receive. Dr Brash may think that is fair. We think it is unfair and divisive. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. So it is all right now for a Minister in an answer to express an opinion on behalf of another member? Is that what you are accepting? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have to say that if I ruled out every single thing like that I would be ruling out things all day. If the member wants me to do that I am happy to abide by a much tougher regime. I thank the member with regard to that and I will rule the last sentence of the answer out of order. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I was expressing my opinion not an opinion on behalf of some other member over there. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is right and that is why I will listen very carefully. 
John Key 
: Does the Minister stand by his statement of 28 October 2000 that: “We recognise that changes in life expectancy and medical science may lead some future government to consider raising the age above 65 but would expect that any such review would be 25 to 30 years away”; and does he accept that he himself made those comments because the New Zealand Superannuation Fund at the very best pre-funds only a small fraction of the significant increases that the ageing population presents? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Dealing with the last point 35.8 percent in terms of the current level of New Zealand superannuation would represent something like $125 per week to a married couple. From Mr Key’s perspective that may be a small amount of money. For those presently retired it certainly is not. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know that you will probably rule that the Minister addressed the question but he has addressed the question by ignoring it. The question asked whether he stands by his own comments which are that there will be changes to national superannuation in 20 to 30 years’ time. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member was asked whether he stands by his comments. He could perhaps give a one-word answer to that. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I not only stand by my comments but also say there is also absolutely no reason for the foreseeable future to change the age of eligibility—unless of course one abolishes the Superannuation Fund to pay for tax cuts for people like Mr Key. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I warn members that there are too many points of order that I think are not points of order. This had better be a point of order. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You earlier ruled that it was improper for Mr English to make any improper inference in respect of a question he asked yesterday. Yet twice today we have heard Dr Cullen make inferences of a negative nature about colleagues on this side of the House that were totally unnecessary in answering the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not correct. It was about unlawful conduct not about comments that members can make in the course of vigorous debate. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Can the Minister confirm that his current Superannuation Fund is not secure in the future in its present form and could be utilised for any pet project if for example a National-ACT Government gets in; and can he also confirm that the only way to really secure it is to put it into private accounts? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No. The only way to really secure it is to keep voting for those parties that support it. 
Rod Donald 
: Did the Minister take then National leader Bill English’s statement during the third reading debate of the New Zealand Superannuation Bill on 10 October 2001 that: “We support Part 1 because New Zealand can afford the payment of 65 percent of the average wage to married couples at age 65.” as a firm commitment on behalf of his party; and does he take Dr Brash’s statements yesterday in relation to lifting the age of entitlement to those under 50 as breaking that commitment and therefore the consensus on superannuation? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Neither of those questions is in order because neither relates to the direct responsibility of the Minister. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Under the New Zealand Superannuation Act I have responsibility for parties signing up to the schedules of the Act which are in Part 1 which is what the member refers to. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member can have a go at rephrasing his question because I am being generous but he had better relate it to the responsibility of the Minister. 
Rod Donald 
: Could the Minister please confirm that under schedule 4 of the New Zealand Superannuation Act parties are invited to confirm with him their commitment to Part 1 or Part 2 of the Act; and did he take the statement in the House on 10 October 2001 from then National Party leader Bill English that: “We support Part 1 because New Zealand can afford the payment of 65 percent of the average wages to married couples at age 65.” as a commitment under schedule 4 of that Act and has Dr Brash reneged on that? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Everything is right up to the last four words. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes I did and indeed I wrote to all party leaders inviting them to sign up to Part 1 and/or Part 2. The National Party declined to sign up to either Part 1 or Part 2. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Can the Minister advise the House of which parties have formally signed up in support of the part pre-funding of future pensions through the New Zealand Superannuation Fund; and has he received any advice concerning the National Party’s intentions in relation to that fund? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes. Labour Progressive and United Future have signed up to both Part 1 and Part 2 and the Green Party has signed up to Part 1 the level of payments. The National Party stated that it would abolish the fund although this morning Dr Brash said that he had not yet made up his mind on that. 
John Key 
: Does the Minister agree with John Tamihere that the age of eligibility for New Zealand superannuation needs to be lifted from 65 along with the introduction of means-testing—a position endorsed by the Retirement Commissioner—and if he does not consider that there is a risk why has he proposed in the Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill that Treasury report to Parliament every 4 years on the costs and risks of demographic population changes? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Because the latter covers a very wide range of Government spending not the least of which is health spending of course which is highly demographically related. I refer the member to the letter that Mr Tamihere wrote to the  
Timaru Herald 
 correcting the story that it carried. 
Ron Mark 
: Has the Minister considered any reports by any political party leader promising that a future Government led by him or her would not move quickly to lower the age of eligibility for national superannuation; if so what conclusions did the Minister draw? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes I have. The conclusion I drew is that when people indicate they might do something they usually end up doing it much faster and much more nastily than they previously said. I witnessed such events in 1991 and 1999 in that regard. 
Health Funding—Race-based Statistics 
2.  
HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Does she believe that race-based statistics provide a basis for race-based health funding; if so why? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 No. That is a hypothetical question as funding is based on need. 
Heather Roy 
: Does that mean that the Minister rejects the arguments of the Wellington school of medicine and indeed now rejects her entire funding formula? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No because the Wellington school of medicine’s research stated that both income and ethnicity needed to be considered in allocating health resources. 
Steve Chadwick 
: What recent reports has she seen regarding the influence of ethnicity on health outcomes? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Recent independent research released by Dr Tony Blakelystated that both socio-economic status and ethnicity needed to be considered when we are looking at allocating health funding. I think it is a very timely piece of research indeed. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: Why has the Minister paid only lip service to those working at the front line of primary care with a small pilot of the Care Plus health card and why does she not base all funding on that card which uses income and high health needs—not race—to offer cheaper care to the individual patients most in need rather than fund primary health organisations on the basisof location and race? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: In respect of the last comment the member made primary health organisations are not funded on the basis of race and geography. However I am pleased to tell the member—and I know she will be happy about this—that the Care Plus project rolls out around all the primary health organisations in New Zealand from 1 July. By that date all our over-65-year-olds will be funded so they have lower-cost care along with all our under-18-year-olds and all the people who have chronic health needs. That is good news for New Zealanders. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Do ethnically based statistics offer information for us to be able to assess how well health policies are impacting upon different groups within our nation and therefore lead to modifications in those policies? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Yes. 
Deborah Coddington 
: Why does the Government not pay for what is actually wrong with each person rather than indulge in racial stereotyping? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: That question is a nonsense. I think one of the best examples of that was given this morning on the radio by Dr Gay Keating from the Public Health Association when she said that for years we have been funding males between the ages of 15 and 20 at a higher rate than females of the same age. Why? Because they are more often in car accidents and die because of that. We do not cut out funding the treatment services just because that happens. We fund them based on need. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Which party in Government was the first to introduce race-based policies for health delivery; and are its members still in the House? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Many of the members of the party that introduced those policies are still in this House. They have had a conversion I presume because the first year that explicit weightings for ethnicity were included in the funding formulae of the regional health authorities was in the funding formulae of 1993-94. 
Heather Roy 
: How do healthy wealthy Maori need more health funding than poor sick non-Maori; and if they do not need more funding why do they get it? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: A Maori does not get more funding under any formula. The formula is applied to all people within a geographical area. So Mr Ngata does not get more money than Mr Smith. The member fails to understand how funding formulae work. 
Greenhouse Gas Emissions—Climate Change Policies 
3.  
NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Tainui) 
 to the  
Convenor Ministerial Group on Climate Change 
: Is the Government making any progress with climate change policies designed to encourage businesses to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Convenor Ministerial Group on Climate Change) 
: 
 Yes. Business has responded very positively to a tender for projects to reduce emissions which can be rewarded with carbon credits. The Government is now working through contracts with businesses for 15 cleaner energy projects including wind farms hydroelectricity schemes and industrial heat plants. 
Nanaia Mahuta 
: Can the Minister explain what benefits businesses get from adopting these technologies? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Businesses that adopt cleaner and more efficient energy technologies can cut costs reduce waste and get more control over their energy needs. The Projects to Reduce Emissions programme offers them the extra benefit of tradable carbon credits in return for their investment. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Why is the Government so intent on imposing a carbon tax that will cost all New Zealanders particularly our vulnerable export sector when Government policy is based on the dubious rationale found in its preferred policy package of 2002 which states: “The area of climate change is uncertain. We know the world has a problem. But it is unclear exactly what will happen with the climate to whom and over what time frame.”; why put our export sector at risk with policy based on this uncertain waffle? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That question was too long but I will allow the Minister to comment. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I thought there were only four or five people in this country who clearly held the view that climate change was a fake idea. I am surprised to learn that we now have an addition to that and I would say to the member that the fact that the science is uncertain does not alter the fact that the direction of the science is very clear indeed. We have a problem in front of us. 
Economic Development—Limited Employment Locations 
4.  
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: Does he stand by his answer to question 5 yesterday in relation to limited employment locations that “I also reassure the House that every locality on this list is there as a result of consultation.It has taken place over the last 3 months with people in local areas and that is why they support this policy.”; if so why? 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: The answer is yes because consultation was an integral part of Work and Income producing and refining the limited employment localities alert list. Localities were placed on the alert list using the criteria of the number of current job seekers the number of job placements made in the last year the local employment opportunities and the availability of public transport for travel. Consultation was undertaken on the resulting provisional alert list with a number of localities. Some were added and some were taken off. 
Sue Bradford 
: How can the Minister really believe that local districts have been properly or adequately consulted when Garry Moore the Mayor of Christchurch and chair of the Mayors Task Force for Jobs says that he is ropeable that there has been no genuine consultation at all with him or the task force at any stage about the whole basis of the limited locations policy? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: There is a bit of confusion here. This is not about the Mayors Task Force for Jobs. Consultation was undertaken with local councils regional councils and other local communities. 
Georgina Beyer 
: Does this policy stop people moving to limited employment localities if they have a job offer? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: No. If someone has a job opportunity in these areas it has no effect on them whatsoever. If they have a means of commuting to or from the job there is no problem. The limited employment localities policy is simply designed to ensure that unemployed people have the maximum chance of securing a job. In 1999 there were 164000 on the unemployment benefit. There are now just 81000. This Government has been very successful. 
Katherine Rich 
: Where was the evidence to back the policy of a tidal wave of unemployed people moving to places like Becks Lauder Patearoa or 120 of the other no-go zones which in October 2003 did not have one single resident registered and drawing the unemployment benefit? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: There are a number of people who are registered as unemployed in these areas. What we are saying to people is that if they are living in an area where there are job employment prospects and they decide to move to an area where there are no job employment prospects then this is a lifestyle choice and the Government via the taxpayer should not fund it. 
Bill Gudgeon 
: Does the Minister accept that these areas which are perceived by some as no-go areas would create social classification and that New Zealanders would become economic refugees in their own country? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: Certainly not. New Zealanders were economic refugees in their own country in the 1990s. Hundreds of thousands of people were unemployed. This Government has spent its whole focus on getting people into a job. I repeat: in 1999 164000 people on the unemployment benefit; now 81000 people. This is a very very good result. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: Why is it that a married couple on the unemployment benefit cannot move to a limited employment locality but a sole parent on the domestic purposes benefit can; and how does he respond to criticisms that his policy discriminates against couples? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: The policy does not discriminate against couples. That is a ridiculous statement. The policy discriminates against people who are on the unemployment benefit. One of the tests for the unemployment benefit is that people are to be ready willing and able to take on work. So people who worked but move from an area where there are employment opportunities to a place where there are none have failed the test for that. That test simply does not apply to a person on the domestic purposes benefit. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Can the Minister explain the logic of encouraging people who are unemployed to go to areas where there is no employment and then paying them an unemployment benefit when they do so? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: There is certainly no logic to that but that seems to be what some people in this House think there should be. This Government is saying that if there are employment opportunities in a person’s hometown and they decide to move to a place where there are not then that is a lifestyle choice and they should fund it not the taxpayer. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can I take it from the Minister’s comments that the Labour Government belatedly now supports the community wage introduced by New Zealand First when last in Government and why are we wasting all this time slowly getting back to that sound policy? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: This Government certainly does not support the community wage concept. What this Government does support is opportunity for people. This Government has put an enormous amount of resource and effort into giving people training and opportunity to get employment. That is why when this Government came into power there were 164000 people unemployed and there are now just 81000. We have been very successful. 
Sue Bradford 
: Will the Minister consider scrapping the limited-location list following emerging evidence from areas as diverse as Banks Peninsula Kaiaua Blackball Christchurch and the far north that there was no genuine consultation in those places with the mayors or anyone else and that many of these places in fact do have opportunities for employment? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: No we will not consider scrapping the list but what we will do is consult with people over time and as places show that there is opportunity for employment in those areas we will amend the list. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Has the Minister seen the claim from the Greens that including Maori with ancestral links to areas within this scheme “abrogates the treaty at a fundamental level”; if so can he advise the House where in the Treaty of Waitangi employment guarantees are contained? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I have seen the claim I do not agree with it and the member is quite right it is not in there. 
Sue Bradford 
: Is there any chance that the Government will consider taking the proactive and positive advice that came out today from the Dunedin City Council and consider creating must-come zones instead of no-go zones for the unemployed? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: We certainly do support a very proactive approach. The member will be delighted to know that the Government has put in a mobile employment fund; we are going into rural and remote areas seeking out job opportunities for people. We are very positive about getting people into employment. That is why unemployment has fallen in this country by over 80000 people. 
Sue Bradford 
: Why is the Government putting so much focus on its limited employment locations policy which affects according to the Ministry of Social Development around 1 percent of the unemployed and not on doing a whole lot more to help the 40 percent of the unemployed who are aged under 25? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: The member will be delighted to know that we will focus on those under the age of 25. I am looking forward to seeing those statistics fall dramatically over the next 12 months. We are focused on getting people into employment. That is why we have many partnerships with industry—such as the driving industry Hotel Association for training etc. We have so many work programmes going on we are struggling to find people to fill the courses. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I call question No. 5. 
Sue Bradford 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I believe we can have another supplementary question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has had four. 
Sue Bradford 
: Yes. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member can have the other one but that cuts back the number further down the track. The member can have one if she wishes. That is her right. 
Sue Bradford 
: Has the Minister been receiving training from his colleague the Minister of Education on how to get offside with those local communities and their civic leaders and is there a Government master plan to close down rural and provincial New Zealand and move everyone into the big cities? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: Quite the contrary; the Government has been spending an enormous amount of time and money in making sure that remote locations in rural and provincial New Zealand get the full attention of Work and Income. 
We have spent substantial sums on training courses getting people into employment and that is why unemployment in this country is half what it was when this Government came into office. 
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species—Enforcement 
5.  
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
 to the  
Minister of Customs 
: Does his department assist with enforcement of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species? 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Customs) 
: 
 Yes the Customs Service works with the Department of Conservation and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry in a very successful cross-agency arrangement known as the Wildlife Enforcement Group to ensure that no protected species under the New Zealand convention are smuggled in or out of New Zealand. 
David Parker 
: Was the Wildlife Enforcement Group involved in the recent interception of native orchids that were about to be smuggled out of New Zealand? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: Indeed it was and that is a very good example of the work this group does. In addition to the New Zealand agencies involved the Czech Customs Service and Environmental Inspectorate resulted in Czech nationals being intercepted at the border with a total of 362 individual plant specimens including 93 orchids—a number of which had been removed from national parks in flagrant breach of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. The two smugglers were convicted and fined and that sends a clear message to would-be smugglers that this country does not tolerate that sort of behaviour. 
Foreshore and Seabed—Customary Title 
6.  
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Justice 
: Can she explain why she believes “Maorialready have customary title over the whole coastline.” given that the Court of Appeal expressed “real reservations about the ability for the appellants” in the NgatiApa case to establish Maoricustomary title? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Yes. The Court of Appeal was referring to an exclusive title. The Government in its foreshore and seabed policy uses the term “customary title” to describe when a Maori group has an ancestral connection only to the foreshore and seabed. This customary title does no more than acknowledge that ancestral connection. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: What then is the point of the Government’s foreshore and seabed proposals which state that Maori will have the opportunity to apply to the Maori Land Court for customary title if the Minister believes that Maori already have customary title? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: The point of the Government’s policy is that the Court of Appeal decision would have provided an exclusive fee simple title if the Act had not been amended. The Government’s policy is therefore to make clear that there is public access to the foreshore and seabed and that is why it was necessary to clarify that customary title in future will relate to the ancestral connection only. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: Is the concept of ancestral connection being incorporated in New Zealand law new? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: No. In 1998 and in 1999 the Fisheries (Kaimoana Customary Fishing) Regulations and the Fisheries (South Island Customary Fishing) Regulations used a similar concept. These regulations allow for a specific area to be notified as the group’s rohe moana—put simply a group’s rohe moana is that part of the foreshore and seabed to which there is an ancestral connection. 
Dail Jones 
: Why does the Minister in her important position continue to disagree with Chief Justice Elias of the Court of Appeal in the NgatiApa case paragraphs 9 and 14? The Chief Justice made it clear that Maori customary land is held by Maori in accordance with tikanga Maori as set out in the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act which requires the establishment of links such as ahi ka and does she know for certain that Maori have links with ahi ka to enable them to make any customary claim; if she does can she tell the House what they are and if she cannot will she apologise to the country for misleading the House the country and creating racial disturbance in New Zealand? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There were four questions there. The Minister may answer two of them. 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: The purpose of the Government’s policy was to ensure that the Court of Appeal decision which would have denied public access to parts of the foreshore and seabed did not do so. The purpose of the policy was to remove the ability of the court to be able to provide for an exclusive private title. 
Stephen Franks 
: Does she stand by her claims yesterday that the whole seabed and foreshore issue is about customary rights that do not from a Maori perspective need legislation and will she now undertake that if her legislation ever emerges it will not create new race privileges never before recognised in our law? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: Yes I can give the member that assurance because they will be customary rights that will be recognised and whoever has a right to those customary rights will be able to exercise them. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Can she explain why today’s  
New Zealand Herald 
 reports that she appeared ambivalent about whether the Government would stick with the term “customary title” in the proposed legislation; and is it true that the Government is considering abandoning the concept? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: I am not responsible for the interpretation that the  
New Zealand Herald 
 makes to any comment I might make. But as I pointed out there is no change in our policy. 
Dail Jones 
: Why is the Minister failing to accept the views of the President of the New Zealand Court of Appeal as expressed in paragraphs 101 and 102 of the NgatiApa case when he says: “Under the common law all land is held by the Crown upon the assumption of sovereignty. Title is obtained by grant or other alienation from the Crown. With the exception of Crown land reserved for Maori land not alienated from the Crown may have the status either of Maori customary land or Crown land. There is no ‘default’ status. It is one or the other.” or does she believe her view is superior to that of the President of the Court of Appeal? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: If the Court of Appeal decision were to stand then New Zealanders would have been denied the right to be able to have access to the foreshore and seabed. 
Stephen Franks 
: I ask the Minister to review her answer to the last question when I asked for an undertaking that no new race privilege would be created not previously known to law and to tell us just why it is that this legislation is covering the whole coastline when the Court of Appeal said it would be rare if ever that common law would give customary use rights a recognition in title? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: If the Court of Appeal decision had been allowed to stand it would have been possible for Maori customary land status to be given that would have resulted in an exclusory title. That has been the whole purpose of this policy. That is why it was important to change it because as the member well knows that would have created a property right which would have given a right to deny people access to the foreshore and seabed. 
Stephen Franks 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister made no attempt to answer the actual question. She repeated the stated purpose of the Government’s policy but did not answer the question which was why this legislation covers the entire coastline when the Court of Appeal said it would be rare if ever and would rely on the establishment of customary use rights. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister did address some of the question. If she wants to add to it she may do so. 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: The point is that whether it is whole or part the principle remains the same. Also on looking at the Act it could have been interpreted by the Maori Land Court not to be in a few rare cases. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Can the Minister tell the House whether the Government is intending to abandon the concept of customary Maori title in its proposed legislation? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: In the sense of an ancestral connection no. 
Dail Jones 
: Why should any political party in this House give any support to Labour Party foreshore and seabed legislation when the Minister makes statements such as “Maori already have customary title over the whole coastline.” and when legislation will presumably be based on that statement which is misleading and giving grave concern to many millions of New Zealanders in the race relations area today? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: The public should have confidence in this Government’s approach to that policy because it will guarantee that they have a right to go on to the foreshores and seabeds of this country. 
Child Youth and Family Services Department—Community Services 
7.  
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
 to the  
Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF) 
: Does she stand by her statement in last year’s report on the Department of Child Youth and Family Services’ funding of community activities that “We remain committed to the provision of quality services to meet community needs and to work collaboratively with communities to achieve positive outcomes for children young people and their families.”; if so why? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF)) 
: 
 Yes I do stand by that statement and the reason why is contained in the question itself. 
Murray Smith 
: Why should the public believe that her department is committed to community solutions when a volunteer grass-roots organisation like the Porirua Rongopai Trust which provides parenting programmes youth activities and other assistance to needy families is told by officials from the Department of Child Youth and Family Services that its funding will be completely cut and that youth activities will instead be mostly left to those organised by gangs because: “The gang scene has changed considerably in recent years and their work amongst young people should be viewed more favourably.”? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I have no information at all that would give me confidence that the so-called quotes that the member is attributing to a staff member of the Department of Child Youth and Family Services are correct. But I would say to the House that all community organisations in New Zealand need to recognise the fact that the baseline review did say that despite the high quality of the services being provided by many organisations through the Department of Child Youth and Family Services funding it would not continue in that way in the future. 
Moana Mackey 
: Can the Minister give examples of how the Government is providing quality services to meet community needs and working collaboratively with communities? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Yes I can. Government funding of community service providers was increased by 6.4 percent this year. In addition to that funding the department purchases services from community providers including approximately $30 million for care services and we are increasing funding for family group conference plans. 
Katherine Rich 
: Why does she maintain such confidence in the Department of Child Youth and Family Services when she has confirmed to me that in February 1209 notifications had not even been entered into the department’s computer and therefore were not counted in the unallocated case list; and how can she be confident that there is not another potential notification like that of Ron Burrows sitting in someone’s in tray unentered? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I am very pleased to be able to confirm to the House and to that member in particular that despite the fact that the notifications had not been entered on the database they had been actioned. That gives me confidence in the staff of the Department of Child Youth and Family Services. 
Murray Smith 
: Is the Minister aware that the same gang youth leaders who appear with the Department of Child Youth and Family Services’ endorsement to be providing activities for young people in Porirua are also actively scouting for fresh recruits for their gangs and in light of this how can she condone the use of gangs for the provision of community and youth work? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: As I indicated in my answer to the initial supplementary question from that member I do not have any information that gives me confidence that his allegations have any basis at all. 
Murray Smith 
: How can the Minister justify taking money away from preventive services offered by voluntary community groups such as the meagre $8000 that has been denied to the Porirua Rongopai Trust when the only way to stop the Department of Child Youth and Family Services from continuing to be the broken-down ambulance at the bottom of the cliff is for it to get involved with families well before they reach crisis point and is that not one of the statutory obligations of her department? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Yes it is and I can confirm as I indicated earlier that it is completely untrue that as the member alleges we are moving away from early intervention and prevention services. That is reflected in the fact that this year we have increased our funding to community providers by 6.4 percent. 
Finance Minister—Confidence 
8.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she have confidence in her Minister of Finance; if so why? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes for many reasons. One reason is the work he has done to guarantee New Zealand superannuation for the future. I note the National Party is signalling no firm commitment to superannuation for future older New Zealanders. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is the Prime Minister concerned that we now have New Zealand’s largest January trade deficit since 1986 and a continuing adverse exchange rate; and how can she retain confidence in a Minister of Finance who adopts the Don Brash policy of doing nothing—unlike every other First World economy in those circumstances? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I retain confidence because neither I nor anybody else blames Dr Cullen for the fall in the US dollar. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Will the Prime Minister rule out the possibility of Dr Cullen—or her Government in fact— interfering in the exchange rate of the New Zealand dollar? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I can only refer the member to Dr Cullen’s own many statements on that subject in which he said it is unwise for a Government to ever say never. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Given that every other country in the world has to have regard to the falling rate of the US dollar why is it that whilst every other First World economy does take steps and has machinery in respect of the highs and lows of currency fluctuations she and her Government have adopted the Don Brash policy of doing nothing? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I note that the member issued a press statement yesterday offering to help to bring down the exchange rate of the dollar and I suggest he makes his suggestions known to the Minister of Finance. 
Employment Relations Law Reform Bill—Fines 
9.  
Hon ROGER SOWRY (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: How does the introduction of a good-faith fine of up to $10000 on employers as proposed in the Employment Relations Law Reform Bill help achieve his stated purpose of the bill “to build productive employment relationships in the workplace”? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 The bill does not propose a good-faith fine for employers alone. It proposes a maximum fine of up to $10000 for any employer or union that engages in serious and sustained breaches of good faith. Providing penalties for serious bad-faith behaviour is entirely consistent with the bill’s purpose to build productive employment relationships in the workplace. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: What specific behaviour by employers between the passing of the Employment Relations Act in 2000 and now has made it necessary to introduce such a tough punitive regime against employers? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: As the member might know the ability for unions and employers to engage in good-faith bargaining has been by and large very successful. However there have been reports of bad-faith bargaining. The idea of this clause in the legislation is to attempt to do something about that. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think the Minister may not have heard the beginning of the question which was: “What specific behaviour by employers …”. I thought he was coming to that with his answer. He did not get to that. He is nodding that he did not hear that. Perhaps he would like to— 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: What I did say was that there had been reports of bad-faith bargaining and I went on to explain why that was. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: Does the Minister envisage a large number of fines for serious and sustained breaches of good faith? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: No. Surveys have shown that most employers employees and unions understand the value of good-faith bargaining in trying to build productive employment relationships in the workplace. As with most legislation maximum penalties are always reserved for the worst offending. In this case the penalties are for serious and sustained breaches only. Those cases are likely to be very rare indeed. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: Why have the threat of a $10000 fine hanging over employers’ heads if the Minister cannot give the House a specific example of why it is needed and if in response to a question from his own side he said he does not envisage it being used very often? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: There are lots of legislation in this House that reserve penalties for the worst-case scenario. What I did say was that the chances of this penalty being used are rare but it is important that where there are sustained and long-term breaches of good faith there be some ability to do something about it. 
New Zealand Nurses Organisation—Report 
10.  
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Does she support the introduction of mandatory minimum nurse-to-patient ratios as proposed by the New Zealand Nurses Organisation in their report  
Nursing the system back to health 
; if not why not? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 No. I support the principles of the magnet hospital programme a programme that the New Zealand Nurses Organisation and the Ministry of Health introduced me to in November 2002 and that has been shown to work in those countries that have introduced it. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Is she aware of research from the University of Pennsylvania that found that every additional surgical patient in a nurse’s workload increases the risk of death by 7 percent; and in light of the compelling evidence that nurse-to-patient ratios can affect patient safety why will she not accept the nurses’ sensible proposal for mandatory minimum nurse-to-patient ratios? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Because there are a number of ways to address this issue and as I just said in my primary answer I support the magnet hospital programme which where it has been introduced works extremely well and produces things such as reduced mortality rates for patients in hospital lower rates of nurse burnout lower rates of needle stick injuries for nursing staff higher rates of nurse job satisfaction and higher nurse ratings of quality care. 
Lynne Pillay 
: When will magnet hospitals be implemented? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The Hutt Hospital was the first to embark on the magnet hospital project. It has already applied to be surveyed by the magnet surveyors comprising American and New Zealand experts towards the end of this year. If it passes the survey it will be the first officially accredited magnet hospital in New Zealand. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Given that it will be many years before magnet hospitals are in place throughout New Zealand what is the Minister’s response to Senior Staff Nurse Ruth Love from the National Women’s Hospital who said on Monday on the radio that she often finds herself looking after eight to 10 patients on a shift and said: “You are basically running all day. While I get a lot of satisfaction out of helping someone when you can’t care for them in a way that you feel is safe you go home feeling dissatisfied. It is very demoralising especially when it’s day in and day out.”? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Although the Hutt Hospital will be the first to be accredited as a magnet hospital next year following the survey I need to tell that member that a number of hospitals around New Zealand have moved into the magnet programme. I expect to see it multiply very quickly around New Zealand—not in a number of years. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Is she aware that the introduction of minimum nurse-to-patient ratios in Victoria Australia resulted in an influx of nurses who had previously left the profession because of understaffing and burnout and will she concede that the nurses’ proposal for minimum nurse-to-patient ratios will make nursing a whole lot more attractive to nurses who have left the profession as a result of burnout and stress; if so why will she not respond positively to the nurses’ very constructive proposal? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I responded very positively to the Magnet New Zealand hospital proposal which the New Zealand Nurses Organisation brought to me—along with Dr Linda Aiken who had done the research on it—and I accepted it as a proposal for nurses in New Zealand because it had a whole lot of advantages for nurses and for patients. So in fact I have accepted a proposal from the Nurses Organisation. That organisation has subsequently said it would like to have minimum mandatory ratios. The research is not strong to show that that is the best way to go. 
Treaty of Waitangi—Public Education 
11.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Maori Affairs (Social Development) 
: What specific work is she currently involved with in relation to public education on the treaty and treaty clauses in legislation and what briefings or meetings has she had in relation to this work with the Coordinating Minister Race Relations? 
Hon TARIANA TURIA (Associate Minister of Maori Affairs (Social Development)) 
: 
 I am not currently involved in any specific work in relation to public education on the treaty and treaty clauses in legislation. I have had one briefing with the Minister of State Services about the Treaty of Waitangi Information Programme. I have not had a specific meeting with the Coordinating Minister Race Relations. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does the Minister accept that her lack of effort in the area of public education on treaty and treaty clauses in legislation has led the Prime Minister to sideline her in favour of the Hon Trevor Mallard in the role of Coordinating Minister Race Relations? 
Hon TARIANA TURIA 
: No. 
Mahara Okeroa 
: Could the Minister tell the House what she has done as the Associate Minister of Maori Affairs with delegated responsibility for treaty education? 
Hon TARIANA TURIA 
: I initiated a proposal to proceed with the development of a policy and programme of public information on treaty issues as foreshadowed in the coalition manifesto relating to treaty education. This proposal went before Cabinet in July 2001. Subsequent to this Cabinet approved the Treaty of Waitangi Information Programme in May 2003. The Minister of State Services is responsible for that programme. 
Rodney Hide 
: In light of her responsibility for public education does she believe that the Hon Trevor Mallard is a culturally appropriate Minister to be coordinating race relations when as Minister of Education he publicly supported Hagley Community College using taxpayer money to build a mosque that Dr Ashraf Choudhary declares to be needs-based but then privately condemned the board for spending money on the mosque and declared that spending to be “ill-advised”; if so why does she believe Trevor Mallard to be a culturally appropriate Coordinating Minister Race Relations? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister may comment on the question in relation to her portfolio but not on whether the person is suitably appointed. That is a job for the Prime Minister. The Minister may comment on the second point. 
Hon TARIANA TURIA 
: I am unsure about what the second point was. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Perhaps Mr Hide could restate the part of his question that does not relate to the suitability of Mr Mallard for appointment because that is the job of the Prime Minister. There was another part to his question. If he wishes to rephrase I will allow him to do so. 
Rodney Hide 
: I will rephrase it and help the Minister. Does the Minister believe that she can work with the Hon Trevor Mallard given his flip-flops on the mosque and in light of his cultural inappropriateness; if so why? 
Hon TARIANA TURIA 
: I am more than confident that I can work with the Hon Trevor Mallard. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Would it be fair for the House to conclude as the Minister has done all the work she claims in the area of public education relating to treaty clauses and legislation that her views were too extreme and too far in favour of one of the racial groups in this country and that that has led the Prime Minister to sideline her in favour of Trevor Mallard? 
Hon TARIANA TURIA 
: Certainly not. What I do want to say is that I do not debate the politics of race. 
Rodney Hide 
: I seek leave to table a letter from me to the Auditor-General explaining the Minister of Education’s confusion over the mosque. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Floods—Government Assistance 
12.  
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
 to the  
Minister for Rural Affairs 
: What further help is the Government providing to the communities affected by floods? 
Hon JIM SUTTON (Minister for Rural Affairs) 
: 
 The Government has announced that it will match dollar for dollar all funds raised by nationwide flood relief appeals by the end of this month. The Government has already donated $890000 to mayoral relief funds and local councils for upfront emergency costs. Central and local government will be the major source of funding for the restoration of public infrastructure. The Government will make a major contribution to the reinstatement of viable agricultural enterprises upon which both the regional and national economies depend. The size and exact form of that contribution cannot yet be determined. 
Darren Hughes 
: Is that all the help that people in flood-damaged areas can expect? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: No. The Government is working through the necessary decisions as quickly as possible for the flood-affected regions. That is a huge area. It is a major undertaking and I am proud of the efforts being made by dedicated public servants and volunteers from the community and of the generous contributions from ordinary New Zealanders. The contribution of the Government will be commensurate with the clear desire of the public to extend a helping hand to fellow New Zealanders in their time of need. 
Simon Power 
: Will the Minister apologise to Shane Whaitiri who today waited for an hour for the Minister to arrive to survey an estimated $1.6 million worth of losses to his potato crop and who was phoned 10 minutes before the Minister was due to arrive and told that he would not be attending as arranged? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: I was not aware that the member was a National Party activist but nevertheless— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will ask the Minister just to answer the question. 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: This morning I visited the flood-damaged area. My journeys around it became delayed because many people are suffering considerably and more time than had been expected was needed to deal with them in a decent human way. That meant that the itinerary had to be cut short. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Will the Minister be gracious enough to confirm that the dollar for dollar - matching proposal announced yesterday was one that United Future proposed to his colleague the Minister of Finance early last week and that has been the subject of consideration ever since that time? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: I am happy to confirm that the situation is as the member suggested and that many other members have also urged the Government to act with generosity. 
Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister of Fisheries) 
: 
 I move  
That the Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. The purpose of this bill is to amend the Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium) Amendment Act 2002 to extend the moratorium on new applications for aquaculture activities in New Zealand’s coastal marine area until 31 December 2004. Further clauses relate to the time constraints on the Department of Conservation in relation to the early expiry of the moratorium over specified areas and to reviving those consents. 
The moratorium was introduced to enable the Government to reform the law that governs aquaculture and to enable councils to begin to plan for aquaculture under the new framework. The moratorium has ensured that councils have not been flooded with marine farm applications in a “race for space” prior to the new legislation coming into effect. An extension of the moratorium is now unavoidable due to a delay in the introduction of aquaculture reform legislation. The foreshore and seabed issue has introduced late and unexpected complications to the aquaculture policy process. Both issues concern public commercial and Maori interests in coastal space and the Government intends to deal with them in an integrated and consistent manner. The Government has striven to avoid the need for an extension to the moratorium. However the issues are profound and complex and an extension now will ensure that we can get right the legislation and the policy. That will provide certainty and a clear framework for the future and that is in the best interests of all stakeholders in the long run. 
The bill as reported back includes two important changes. I thank the Primary Production Committee for its suggested amendments to clauses 6 and 7 which significantly improve the bill. 
Clause 6 originally removed the time limit that currently applies to the Minister of Conservation when the Minister makes a recommendation about the early expiry of the moratorium. Under the Resource Management Act a council can apply to the Minister of Conservation to have the moratorium lifted in specific areas provided that the tests in the Act are met. The current time limit of 20 working-days for the Minister to make a recommendation on early expiry is insufficient to complete the Order in Council process. The bill as introduced would have replaced that time limit with a general duty to avoid all unreasonable delay. The committee agreed with submitters that there should be some time constraint and suggested 40 working-days with a possible extension of a further 40 working-days where additional information is required. That is a reasonable time frame to allow a proper assessment of a regional council’s request and the preparation of the necessary Cabinet papers. I support the recommended change. 
Clause 7 deals with a problem that has arisen as a result of the present dual permitting process for marine farming. Some coastal permits issued under the Resource Management Act for aquaculture activities have lapsed or are due to lapse while applicants obtain the necessary marine-farming permits under the Fisheries Act. To remedy that the bill deems existing coastal permits to have been given effect to for the purpose of section 125 of the Resource Management Act by the application for a Fisheries Act marine-farming or spat-catching permit. In addition the bill revives certain coastal permits for aquaculture activities that have lapsed because they were unable to be given effect to or until the required Fisheries Act marine-farming or spat-catching permits have been granted. Having those consents lapse would be unjust could cause hardship for some and could create unnecessary conflict and disruption. The effect of the bill will be to allow the fisheries permit to be decided without the coastal permit lapsing. The committee suggested changes to wording in clause 7 to make it clear that all consents for aquaculture activities in the coastal marine area are included and are able to be saved from lapsing—not just consents granted for occupation of coastal space. I agree with that. 
The Government supports this bill as amended by the select committee and currently does not intend to move amendments at the Committee stage. In summary this bill provides for some expeditious changes to the Resource Management Act to deal with the need for a limited extension to the aquaculture moratorium. It also deals with specific process problems that are being experienced by marine farmers particularly in Marlborough which arise from the current dual permitting regime. 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I rise to say that National certainly will not support the extension of the moratorium. We will not support an extension that effectively puts the handbrake on all aquaculture development in this country. The handbrake has been on for 2 years already. I remind the House that National opposed the original moratorium way back in 2002. It was discussed I remember at a select committee late in 2001 it was passed in 2002 and we are disgusted to see that after a moratorium of 2 years and 2 months no progress has been made. 
We pointed out at that time that the moratorium was something we needed to oppose. We would have had some sympathy for it if the Government had been going to put forward reforms and had made that clear to the general public to the regional councils and to aquaculturalists. The Government did not do that. In effect the 2-year moratorium resulted in regional councillors and aquaculturalists walking around in the dark not knowing what the Government’s plans for the industry were. Therefore they were unable to put into place aquaculture plans for their regions—and they still cannot. The current moratorium on coastal permit applications will expire on 25 March 2004—that is in a few weeks. This bill will extend it by 9 months to 31 December 2004. 
The moratorium I know does not affect land-based aquaculture but it affects everyone else and that accounts for about 98 percent of aquaculture in this country. We oppose the extension. The Government should get on with the job of making public the aquaculture reforms so that the regional councils are no longer flying in the dark when trying to develop aquaculture management areas. Although the Government says that the intention of the delay is to enable more clarity around the foreshore and seabed debate the reality is that the regional councils need more time to establish aquaculture management areas. In fact only four regional councils to date have been able to make any progress and only one the Northland Regional Council has made any significant progress. 
I point out to parliamentary colleagues that Local Government New Zealand itself said in confidential papers I tabled in the House last year—effectively I leaked them because I wanted to put this issue to Parliament—that the moratorium regime is unlikely to result in any success because when it is lifted there is likely to be a de facto continuation of the moratorium on new aquaculture areas. That is because there is an inability to plan for aquaculture management in the absence of essential fisheries-related information held by the Ministry of Fisheries along with the gaps and inadequacies in that information. In other words the Ministry of Fisheries is holding back information from the regional councils so the councils cannot plan and even if the ministry tabled all that information for the regional councils it would be inadequate. So regardless of whether there is a moratorium or no moratorium the reality is the regional councils cannot plan for aquaculture because the Ministry of Fisheries and the Minister are holding back important information from them. 
The regional councils also believe that the moratorium is a blunt and inflexible management tool such that no new aquaculture activities can commence until aquaculture management areas are created. I bring to members’ attention that the industry is broken into various sectors. I will break it into two just for simplicity in talking about shellfish. There is no doubt that there was a gold rush when it came to mussel farming in and around the Marlborough Sounds area but there has been no gold rush for space when it comes to oyster farming in the rest of the country. Why has oyster-farming development been put on hold in Auckland where there is no problem just because there have been mussel-farming problems in the Marlborough Sounds? It is absurd to use such a blunt tool that stops every aquaculturist in this country from producing a livelihood from a marine farm. Why do that when the problem occurs only in pockets around the country? I raise that with the chair. 
The National Party has no confidence that the additional time frame of 9 months will be sufficient to resolve the seabed and foreshore issue. There is no way that within the next 9 months all New Zealanders will suddenly jump on board with this Government and agree with its proposals for the seabed and foreshore. We have 80 percent of New Zealanders disagreeing with the Government that they should hand over in some way ownership of the seabed and foreshore to Maori. There is no way that New Zealanders will change their mind about that. They believe that all New Zealanders—Maori and non-Maori alike—own the seabed and foreshore. They will not change their mind and certainly will not change it in 9 months. We have no confidence that in 9 months the issue will be resolved. 
We have no confidence that the Minister will enact the aquaculture reform legislation. In fact we have not even seen it in this House. It has to be drafted tabled have its first reading and go to a select committee. Then it has to come back to the House for its second reading its Committee stage and its third reading. In that time frame we have to receive submissions from a large number of people in the sector. There is no way that reform legislation will go through in 9 months. There is no way that the regional councils will be able to develop their aquaculture management areas. I put this to the Minister of Fisheries. I asked him late last year and I have the notes here: “What extra resourcing will be put in place to ensure that the extension to the moratorium on new marine farms will be sufficient to complete the Ministry’s required tasks and goals?”. The Minister replied: “A moratorium extension requires no additional resourcing for the Ministry of Fisheries.” He is saying that he will extend the moratorium for 9 months because the ministry has not been able to get the job done but that he will not give it any extra resources because it does not need them. So the ministry has not been able to get the job done in 2 years and 2 months it will be given an extension of time to do the job but it will not be given any further resourcing. That seems absurd to me. The Minister should at least show some proactiveness when it comes to meeting the restriction that he himself has put on which extends the moratorium a further 9 months. 
I notice we have a new Minister of Fisheries. He has to learn what a mussel is what an oyster is and what the other marine-farming issues in this country are. I have met the Minister. He can use words of two syllables or less but he will not be able to come up to speed in 9 months let alone drive his ministry to meet these goals. 
For those reasons the National Party will not be supporting this moratorium. I have a selection of headlines here: “Marine farmers threaten to go overseas”; “Further delay on new marine farms”; “Aquaculture delays will cost millions”; and from an editorial in the  
New Zealand Herald 
: “Get on with the business of sea farming”. The whole country is asking why the Government is stopping this successful business by extending the moratorium which will mean effectively that it is in place for 3 years. The brakes will be on for 3 years. Why is the Government doing this? Why is it not resourcing the Ministry of Fisheries to deal with the issue? Why does it not just give the regional councils the information they need let them get on with the job of developing aquaculture management areas and let these farmers farm? That is what the National Party says and we will be voting against the bill for those very good reasons. 
JANET MACKEY (Labour—East Coast) 
: 
 The million-dollar question here is obviously: what would the National Party do if it were in Government? We are hearing that it would continue with the same ad hoc approach to the issuing of consents for aquaculture in New Zealand. We have seen the consequences of that. The whole industry—and the whole of New Zealand—is not asking that we continue with that regime. In the submissions that were received by the Primary Production Committee most of the submitters supported the extension of the moratorium. They all said that it was important that we proceed and apply some haste to that process. Instead of the moratorium ending in March it is to be extended to December. It is a short extension to allow regional councils the opportunity to prepare their coastal plans and to allow us to create some organisation in an industry that at the present time is ad hoc and not managed well. The industry recognises the need for this legislation. Most of the submissions supported a short extension of the moratorium and the Government is very confident it is dealing with the matter in an appropriate way. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 The Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill which is before the House for the second time in recent months comes at a crucial juncture in the regulating of aquaculture in New Zealand. But lest we think that is a recent occurrence I can tell the House that the paper that first set out future proposals for the industry was written in 1989. A discussion paper was put out at the same time. Throughout the 1990s under the previous administration—which is no longer giving support to this moratorium—those proposals foundered. They were passed on and passed on. In other words there was delay after delay. The industry and the people who really know about fishing have been long long concerned about that. When I took the opinion of my learned friend Mr Doug Woolerton who sat on the Primary Production Committee and heard the substantial submissions made in support of the moratorium reluctantly I had to agree with him that New Zealand First should support this bill. Reluctantly we came to the opinion that it required support because of the delay in addressing previous proposals and also for another reason. We have Ministers of integrity. Earlier this year when I asked the former Minister of Fisheries Mr Hodgson he categorically assured me in the House that this moratorium would cease on 31 December 2004. So one waits in wonder for that. 
Let me go back to the more recent history of the industry. In August 2000 the current process began and the comment was made that aquaculture could make a greater contribution to the economy if the legislative framework under which the activity operates was updated. That was August 2000. It was said that—and how true it is—the challenge identified by the Government was to update the legislative framework for aquaculture so as to provide more certainty to all the participants. It was said the framework should enable the greatest benefit to be obtained from the use of coastal space without undermining the rights of existing fishers or allowing an undue adverse impact on the aquatic environment. That was August 2000. Then in July 2000 at a mussel industry conference the Minister said that the chances of enacting legislation by March of this year were less than certain but he still felt they were favourable. He advised that the extension in the moratorium would be required. 
Hon Dover Samuels 
: Come on! Be positive. 
JIM PETERS 
: He advised the Hon Dover Samuels an ex-fisher that the extension would be measured in months not years. No less than 5 months later there was a bill before us to extend the moratorium by 9 months. 
Now we have the Hon David Benson-Pope a very very new Minister who is inexperienced in these matters speaking with some confidence—one may say over-weaning confidence—and saying that more clarity is needed around the outcomes given the implications of the foreshore and seabed issue and that regional councils need more time to develop aquaculture management. First I say to the Minister who read that statement out that the latter part is just not true. Regional councils if they require more time to develop their management of aquaculture are solely awaiting the pleasure and thinking of this Government and this Minister. They waited all last year for that. Regional councils believed the Government’s thinking would be clarified some time last year—it has not been—they are still awaiting the final outcomes of that process. 
What did we have in mind when we first faced the moratorium? Some of us who were not in the House at that time have had a look at marine farming. We were told there would be a changed interface between the Resource Management Act and the fisheries legislation so the regional councils would have all the ability that they required to consider all the environmental effects of aquaculture including the impact that aquaculture has on the aquatic environment and on the use of fisheries resources. Regional councils were told there would be a single permit-approval system that would operate under the Resource Management Act. They were told that aquaculture management areas which were marine farming zone areas should be set in place and that they and they alone were the areas where marine farming could take place. Regional councils were told that the Government of the day would provide them with additional rule-making powers to deal with the competition for coastal space. They were told there would be some guidance given with regard to how coastal space could be allocated to single space-holders to competitive space-holders or to a range of space-holders. All those issues were being advanced and talked about last year. 
Then the regional councils the ministry of the day and other bodies came to the very interesting concept of how to decide the tendering process. The Minister may learn some things if he listens carefully to me. How were the regional councils to go through the tendering process? That is a very interesting concept. Would space go to the highest bidder? Could multiple owners put their hands up together in the tendering process? Would there be any priority for those who lived in the region or for iwi? All those matters that were talked about last year are still waiting for further clarification and a decision. 
Lastly and this is very important in the minds of the industry there was the question of what system would be set in place to take out the existing farm permits that were already there for aquaculture. Marine farms had been operating under the old Act of 1983 administered by the Ministry of Fisheries and instead were to operate under the present Act. That brings me to a very important matter that the members from Northland are very well aware of: the rights of existing permit-holders. The answer is that those people will be told that in the future. If those permits are to be transferred what regime are they to be transferred into and what type of permit will they be? What certainty is there for existing permit-holders with regard to both the 1983 Act and the Act of 1996? All those matters were being given ample consideration during last year and the previous year. Throughout that time the Minister of the day and the Ministry for the Environment as well were giving some belief to people out there that those matters would be known. I suggest to the Minister that at this point of time he does not have one clear definitive answer to give on any of those issues—not one—and he should have. 
We support this bill in the full knowledge that this moratorium should cease on 1 January 2005. Why should that be so? Out there is an industry that has long awaited resolution of these matters and it is an industry that has already in the last decade—particularly in the last 5 years—had a huge expansion in the demand for its product especially for mussels. The industry could have done much more than it has and it could bring much more to our local and regional economies yet it is being denied the right to do so by ministry and Government inaction. That is an urgent issue for those who are involved in aquaculture. In Northland as the Hon Dover Samuels knows much work has been done with regard to setting out in the community the spaces that should be allocated for marine farming. That process has not been without concern being expressed by those who arrive with the latest house or bach in the area and who do not understand or appreciate the effect a farm 3 miles off the coast can have. Those people do not appreciate the methods that are inherent in modern aquaculture and do not appreciate that it is not like the fish farms of the past—the type of European experiences—which we would have real concerns about. Instead modern marine farms can be productive and environmentally sustainable and are a very very sound use of our marine water space. Most of all aquaculture provides opportunities for the rural economy to get real productive benefit real income and real long-term gain especially for Maori who are contemplating getting money from the Fisheries Commission. 
I hope the Government takes very seriously the whole concern that is felt and the infrastructure that is needed in legislative form to make this industry operate in 2005. I am not altogether heartened by the fact that the Ministry for the Environment is right now advertising for people. That indicates to me that nothing has yet been done on its behalf given that it is advertising for 10 people for a marine-farming sector group of interest. Marine farming can and should operate. It operates with planning and with community goodwill and it operates because there is out there the ability to generate real income. New Zealand First supports the absolute ending of the moratorium on 31 December 2004. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I rise to make this contribution on behalf of the Green Party and particularly on behalf of my colleague Ian Ewen-Street who cannot be here today. He is a member of the Primary Production Committee which has heard the submissions on the Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill. The Greens support the passage of the bill although not entirely uncritically. It is clear that before the imposition of the marine-farming moratorium 2 years ago the aquaculture industry was going through something of a Wild West phase with many regional councils being inundated with applications for water space. Councils responded in a variety of ways and the confusion amongst the participants in the aquaculture industry was reaching crisis point. Uncontrolled expansion of the industry was inappropriate not only because of the unknown effects of aquaculture activity on inshore and offshore ecosystems but also because of the waste of effort and resources that results when sunrise industries overshoot sustainable levels of activity as has happened in many other production sector industries in New Zealand. 
The intention of the original moratorium was to give councils and central government some breathing space in which to plan for the orderly development of the industry rather than for them to have to continually deal with a flood of new applications while simultaneously trying to plan for the future. The former Minister of Fisheries made it clear at the time of the earlier legislation that he wanted councils to develop aquaculture management areas—or “AMAs”—inside which marine farming could operate with a degree of freedom. The aquaculture management areas are intended to come into effect with the passage of the aquaculture reform legislation which was scheduled to be completed by now but is still to come before the House. There are a number of reasons for that of course including the complexity of the aquaculture management areas scheme and more recently the additional complication of the foreshore and seabed issue. 
In the circumstances there seems to be little alternative to supporting the extension of the moratorium though the Greens are very conscious that the former Minister of Fisheries has broken his earlier assurances to the industry. When the moratorium was put in place 2 years ago he gave a categorical assurance to the industry that in no circumstance would the moratorium be extended. It was he claimed just a 2-year breather and would be enough to enable the substantive legislation to be drafted without becoming a long-term de facto brake on aquaculture development. Although the foreshore and seabed issue has recently become a significant complicating factor it was clear even before then that the reform legislation would not be ready before the expiry of the moratorium. 
The development of the aquaculture industry in New Zealand is a complex process. It has the potential to be a significant contributor to the national economy and to reduce the intense pressure on wild fisheries. The level of productivity from a confined space can be exceptionally good and it is an industry that is booming in Australia and in many other parts of the world. The very high-quality growing conditions in New Zealand and the greenshell mussels which are unique to our shores mean the products of the industry are already in considerable demand overseas. However in many places where the expansion of aquaculture has been uncontrolled aquaculture has had severe negative impacts on ecosystems. Almost all aquaculture takes place within coastal waters so the industry is competing for space with recreational fishers boaties and other users of that space. That does open up a philosophical debate about the extent to which people can exclusively use open space for the making of private profit. In the past there has been a tendency for marine farmers to believe they own their patch of water and have the right to occupy it in perpetuity. Presumably the tension between the need of individual farmers for certainty for the foreseeable future and the needs of other users for water space will be addressed in the aquaculture reform legislation. 
In addition there is the inescapable reality that aquaculture is a process that exists only within biophysical limits. Mussels will grow only when they have sufficient food and the nutrient level of the water is in turn affected by the number of mussels feeding from it. Already marine farmers are aware that individual mussels in the middle of a farm or at the end of a farm downstream from the tide grow significantly more slowly than the individual mussels that have access to waters of a high nutrient level. When other farms are placed between an existing farm and its source of nutrients the impact of that on the existing farm can be considerable. 
Perhaps even more pertinent is the fact that the ecological impact of marine farms is poorly understood. For instance what is their long-term impact on the biological communities on the seafloor below the farms and what is the impact of their nutrient draw-down on other wild communities that have been dependent on the same source of phytoplankton for nutriment? What is the impact of farms on the reproduction of fish species because of the consumption of eggs and other zooplankton? 
The simple reality for marine farmers is that they exist in something of an uncertain world both in terms of the food supply for their product and of the tenure of the space that they occupy. What they and other primary producers need is certainty. The Greens are hopeful that the extension of the moratorium will provide for the development of regional plans pertaining to aquaculture management areas and that that will be accompanied by a plan for the study of the ecological impacts of activities carried out in the aquaculture management areas. Only in that way will aquaculture be able to develop sustainably. 
In terms of the detail of this bill itself the only real point of contention within the Primary Production Committee was on the question of the time constraints on the Minister of Conservation when making recommendations on the early expiry of the moratorium in certain areas. Officials urged the members of the committee to completely remove the 20 working-day time limit on the Minister but although we acknowledge the present good record of the Minister we were reluctant to remove all time restrictions. The Greens agreed with the committee that 40 working-days plus the potential for a further 40-day extension should be sufficient for the Minister to make those decisions. The Greens support the passage of this bill and look forward to the early tabling of the aquaculture reform bill. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to speak in support of the second reading of this bill. As I pointed out in my first reading speech United Future was concerned about the extension of this moratorium knowing that there are many opportunities existing in the country for economic development within aquaculture farming but we were resigned to the fact that an extension was inevitable. 
The Primary Production Committee has reported back to the House after hearing submitters and we are pleased that it has attended to some of the details that were raised by them. United Future does not have a member on this select committee; we monitor it from a distance and we are pleased with the work the committee has done. It has made some useful amendments to the legislation. 
The National member who spoke earlier pointed out that there were various concerns about this extension and how urgently we want to see the aquaculture legislation put into this House so that the proper framework is in place for the development of this industry. We share those concerns. The member asked why there was a delay. It is really quite obvious. We have to do this properly. It is no good if we open up the opportunities too soon then find we have made some mistakes because we have not put in place proper procedures or there are environmental concerns as mentioned by the speaker before me. There are a number of issues that still need to be investigated properly before we begin to allow permits on a wide scale across our marine environment. 
There are many people who are keen to get involved in aquaculture but there are also many who are very concerned about the proliferation of marine farms particularly around our inshore coastal environment and their concerns are just as important. We cannot have a mad headlong rush into making profits without being conscious of what the impacts may be. 
While we do want to make sure that this is the final extension—and that in particular the regional councils are doing the work that needs to be done and the Ministry of Fisheries officials are working on the preparation of the legislation so that it will be accomplished this year—we are of the mind that it is necessary. Again I thank the select committee for taking note of the details raised by submitters. We are happy to see this bill process through to the Committee stage. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (ACT) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the ACT party to oppose the Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill. This bill will change the timing for the moratorium to end from 25 March of this year to 31 December. This bill represents yet another broken promise from the Labour Government. The Government promised that the moratorium would be lifted by March. What do we find? We find that the moratorium will be extended until 2005. Even that is dishonest. If members of the Labour Government put their hands on their hearts they would not be able to say that the foreshore and seabed fiasco will be resolved by the end of the year. This bill is dependent upon the foreshore and seabed legislation being solved fixed or whatever one wants to say and every single member of this House knows that that issue is the biggest debacle that this Parliament has seen. Labour members sit there and try to pretend that this is an honest bill for the marine industry and regional councils up and down New Zealand who have a responsibility to decide where their aquaculture areas will be and it is a lie that is being perpetrated here today— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The member is heading down the wrong track with that sort of language. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN: 
 This bill is simply misleading New Zealanders that in fact the moratorium will be lifted by the end of the year. If the new Minister thinks that what I am saying is not correct I challenge him to get to his feet or get one of his members to get to his or her feet and say that I am wrong. I am not wrong. The moratorium will have to be extended by early next year or later on this year and it will go on and on. 
If we stand back and ask ourselves where the future of New Zealand lies what sorts of industries are emerging and developing for sure we would say that the aquaculture industry is one of them; that aquaculture farming fish management or whatever one wants to call it is an industry that New Zealand could do really really well. We understand that the moratorium was put on in the first place because the Labour Government lost its nerve. There was a bit of a rush of new people putting in applications and instead of putting in place a process to manage that rush of applications take it step by step and do it properly and competently the Government panicked and brought in a moratorium. 
The result of that moratorium has been that a lot of New Zealanders who were going to be investing in marine farming have gone off shore. I know of businesses that were looking to put millions of dollars into marine farming in New Zealand and when they knew the moratorium was coming on they had no faith that the Labour Government would be able to stick to its time frame. They had no faith that this Government understood the needs of business at all or the fact that in business one has to be able to plan get investment dollars together and have certainty that a Government will not change its rules midstream. Those investors and business people who had such high hopes for building aquaculture businesses in New Zealand looked at the Labour Government and asked: “Can we trust this Government?”. The answer was no so they left New Zealand. Many of them are now set up in Australia. 
I happen to know of one particular business that within 6 months of taking its investment money and good ideas across the shore to Australia had its marine farm up and running with no mucking around. There was no stupid Government intervention to try to prevent it from doing what businesses should be able to do. There was nothing like that—nothing like the absolute total shambles that this Labour Government has displayed to almost anything relating to business and investment in this country. 
This bill epitomises the way this Labour Government treats business. This side of the House has called the Government an anti-business Government. The reason the Government is anti-business is that it has no idea what actually drives business in this country. I remind those members sitting there that this country runs on the small-business sector. It is small businesses in New Zealand that create the jobs the growth and our standard of living. When a Government mucks around with the small-business sector as this Government is doing not only with legislation like this but with our industrial relations environment—the Government is about to stuff that up for most businesses in New Zealand with its new changes to the employment relations laws—it takes the heart out of small business and a lot of small businesses that had big plans dreams and aspirations of moving into different areas like marine farming decide they cannot be bothered. They do not want to be mucked around by a Government that does not understand their needs or what it is that drives them. 
Because of the moratorium that was originally put on the marine industry investment has gone and businesses have now left New Zealand. This country deserves better. This country deserves a Government that will come clean if it is not managing to do what it is meant to do like planning properly and organising itself. But we have a Government that is an expert at spin. It spins everything. I must say that the poll last night on television was really interesting. It asked New Zealanders whether they thought that all the U-turns that had been committed by the Labour Government was because there was a genuine reason to change policy or whether it was a public relations move by a Government that had been shaken to the core because it suddenly saw that it might lose at the next election. Ninety percent of some groups of voters said that this Government was insincere and it was going about its U-turns because it was panicking. Fifty-three percent of the Government’s own supporters said that this Government was changing policy doing U-turns and was not sincere. They said it was simply to try to get its polling up. 
This bill is distressing on another level and not just for the businesses that wanted to invest in marine farming or for marine industry itself—which has been stuffed around now for years and under this bill that situation will go on not just until December but next year as well and probably as long as this Labour Government is in force. The only hope for the marine industry is that we have a change in Government. This bill is also causing a huge amount of distress to regional councils up and down the country. Regional councils have a responsibility to figure out where their aquaculture management areas will be up and down the coastline. Some regional councils have already started their consultation and planning. Hundreds and hundreds of New Zealanders have turned up to those meetings to say what they think of those potential aquaculture areas. I shall tell members what this Government has not done. It has not given instructions to those regional councils on how to go about that process. What has happened is that many regional councils are going to industry first and saying: “Give us your wish list” and then taking that wish list back to the people who rightly say: “Hang on a minute. This is in conflict with tourism and recreational activities in our areas.” What has happened with this whole field is that a lot of distress has been caused because this Government has not given leadership. It has not given any proper planning to that whole area and because of that the ACT party has to oppose this bill. 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 Iremind the previous speaker that 1 percent in the polls gives a nought-return presentation into this House but I turn to more important measures about the aquacultural extension to the moratorium. Sadly all of us are waiting for the opportunities of aquaculture development in this country but an unintended consequence of the foreshore and seabed issue and a Court of Appeal decision have caused us to pay due regard to the commercial interests and the Maori issues that have arisen from that decision. We will deal with those in a consistent and integrated manner. I support this bill. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 After listening to that contribution from the Labour member I have to say that watching mussels grow would be more interesting. I want to contribute to this bill and to challenge the Minister in charge by saying what an embarrassment it is. The first bill we have debated with the new Minister Mr Benson-Pope is a bill to stop the growth of the fishing industry. 
Hon David Benson-Pope 
: No. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: It is a moratorium and moratoriums stop things. 
Hon David Benson-Pope 
: The member has forgotten his pills again and he knows what happens then. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: That just shows us the depth of that Minister—the moment we challenge him on an issue of policy he gets all personal and nasty. That is his style. He cannot win the debate so he gets personal and nasty. 
I ask the Minister of Fisheries what good will come from stopping growth of the aquaculture industry? Here we have one of the most exciting industries with so much potential for our country yet all this Government can do is put the brakes on it while it does its hui talking and the confusing policy work that is taking us nowhere. I remind the House that when the moratorium was introduced in 2001 we were promised that there would be no extension and that the Government would have the work done. We now know that it will not be until 2005 at the very earliest that this industry will have the opportunity to grow and develop. 
I remind members opposite that we are talking about an industry that contributes $320 million a year to the New Zealand economy. The industry says it is under siege. In every area this Government has this industry under siege. We have this moratorium bill. We have the confusion over the issue of the ownership of foreshore and seabed and the extraordinary comments from Margaret Wilson that iwi have customary title to all of New Zealand’s coastline. That will further put the jitters down the spines of those in the aquaculture industry. The industry also faces the Government’s new employment relations changes which will increase its costs and it faces all the pressures of a high dollar. 
As the MP for Nelson and Tasman I have been closely associated with the aquaculture industry for 14 years and I know of no time when it has been in such bad shape. It is under siege because of a Government that does not know and does not understand those who are in the engine room of the New Zealand economy. 
The House will note that this is a resource management amendment bill. The Resource Management Act is in one diabolical mess as a consequence of this Government. If we reflect back to 1999 a very sensible bill was on the table and ready for consideration by the Government. The Labour Government pulled the plug on that bill and we have had nothing but piecemeal inadequate amendments since—of which this is another. What those in the key primary industries seek from a Government is what Muriel Newman properly referred to as “certainty”. People need to know what the rules are and chip-chopping around all the time on the rules with this sort of bill takes us absolutely nowhere. 
We must also mention the huge confusion and uncertainty around the foreshore and seabed. I have noted not less than five different Government positions since the announcement was made in July last year. First of all we were told that the Government would legislate and provide for Crown ownership. The next minute we had a further announcement that said that the Government would provide for a system of customary title. We then had a third announcement prior to Christmas and then the Government got a hammering in the polls and did a U-turn. Yesterday we had that announcement from Margaret Wilson saying that there would be customary title to all areas of the foreshore and seabed. 
Members on this side of the House ask: just where does Labour stand? How many more positions can we expect from the Government on the issue of foreshore and seabed ownership? How many more times will those in the aquaculture industry have to put up with the confusion and the muddle of the Government on that key area? 
I want to make a further point in respect of the role of the Minister of Conservation in this bill. It is the view of members on this side of the House that it high time we took the Minister out of resource management decision-making. There is no need for it. Quite frankly given some of the bizarre decisions of the current Minister of Conservation the vast majority of New Zealanders would have far more confidence in the decisions of regional councils. 
I want to repeat the commitment that has often been made by National—it is time to get politicians out of resource management decision-making whether it is in terms of the Minister of Conservation’s interference or the sort of legislation we see for Project Aqua. It is not good policy to have politicians meddling in individual consents. We want to see the base law changed with regard to that so that there is a greater degree of certainty and a lower lever of political interference in the overall resource management process. 
The last point I wish to make in respect of this bill is the potential for job growth and wealth growth. New Zealand is so fortunate—not only does it have a stunningly beautiful coastline it also has very high nutrient levels and huge potential for the growth of this industry. Right now in my port of Nelson there are five large fishing boats tied up and unused because of the crisis in that industry. The potential for the fishing industry is not in catching more wet fish but in aquaculture. This Government’s policy of putting a freeze on new aquaculture farms for 2001 2002 2003 and now 2004 is holding our country back and it is certainly holding back my own electorate of Nelson. 
I challenge members opposite to stand by their word. They said there would be no extension of this moratorium but that is what this legislation does. I say to members opposite that they have Jim Anderton running around the country giving money to multimillionaires so that they can go on fishing trips wherever rather than supporting New Zealand industry by removing the barriers to growth. It is not consistent and it is a matter of double standards for Jim Anderton as Minister for Industry and Regional Development to be going around New Zealand talking about growth opportunities at the same time as his colleagues introduce bills into the House of this sort which simply freeze the industry and stop growth. 
There is no explanation for that and the bottom line of this bill is that New Zealanders will be poorer. There will be fewer jobs and all because of incompetence in the Government ranks. It is due to those members’ incompetence that they could not meet their own timetable for providing a sensible legal framework for the development of aquaculture. I say to members opposite shame! They should be ashamed because of the lost job opportunities and lost exports. 
I note today that we have had the worst export-import deficit since 1986. So why are those members stopping the growth of export industries? Are they not concerned about the trade deficit and the need for this country to earn its way in the world? If they are concerned about that why is the new Minister Mr Benson-Pope going to stop the growth of the fishing and aquaculture industry with his very first legislation as Minister? That Minister should lower his head in shame because this bill is an embarrassment for him as Minister. 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I rise on the second reading of the Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill which extends the moratorium. Other Government colleagues have outlined in advance the reason this legislation is necessary and I am sure that because it is a moratorium it means that there is more work to be done on it. I am sure that the new Minister of Fisheries the Hon David Benson-Pope will be advancing those issues soon. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 With a contribution like that and an endorsement from the junior whip the newly appointed Minister of Fisheries David Benson-Pope embarks on his ministerial career without much chance of success. I rise to say that the National Party will certainly be voting against the Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill. I say at the outset that this legislation shows graphically what a shambolic mess this Government is now in. This legislation as my colleague Nick Smith has just pointed out is the very first legislation under the name of the new Minister of Fisheries the Hon David Benson-Pope and it does nothing to help fishing. It continues the inhibiting of a very vital industry to this country. 
During the shambolic proceedings of the last couple of weeks the attention was certainly on the fact that Lianne Dalziel lost her job without ceremony but attention should also have been focused on the fact that Pete Hodgson lost his job as the Minister of Fisheries. It is little wonder he lost his job as Minister of Fisheries because the industry—this industry that is vital to New Zealand—had totally lost confidence in the Minister and his ability to shepherd this very important industry through its processes. I quote from a question in the House on 29 July 2003 when the Minister was asked for an assurance that the 2-year moratorium he had imposed on the aquaculture industry would not be further extended. 
Phil Heatley 
: Who asked that question? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: That question was asked by my colleague Phil Heatley the National Party spokesperson on fisheries. Pete Hodgson’s response was: “As I told the marine-farming industry last week my aim is to avoid any extension of the moratorium and I expect to know in a few weeks whether I will succeed.” Nearly 12 months on members know that Pete Hodgson has failed to succeed. We know that he has broken another promise and we also know that amongst the flak around the Lianne Dalziel issue for misleading the public of New Zealand the Prime Minister surreptitiously took the opportunity to sack Pete Hodgson who has been the most ineffective Minister of Fisheries that Parliament—and the industry—has seen in my time here. He has been replaced by the Hon David Benson-Pope who comes to the House today with the first bill in his name and what does it do for the industry? It puts the brakes on an industry currently worth $320 million in revenue and $260 million in export receipts and we are debating it on the day—as Nick Smith pointed out—that we have seen the worst trade deficit figures since the mid 1980s which was the last time the country suffered under a Labour Government. 
I take the opportunity of hoping that the Minister will assure the House that the moratorium now being extended to the end of this calendar year will not require further extension. No Mr Benson-Pope will not give that assurance to the House today. We discussed it at the select committee. I was concerned about whether we would be back in the House before the end of the year debating a further extension and we were assured by Labour members on that select committee that that would not happen. I doubt that. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: What does the Minister say? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I asked the Minister and he sat dumbfounded. He did not have any officials around him to help him with that question so the House does not know whether the Minister has any confidence at all that this moratorium will not require extension. But I think it will. I say that because for months we have been promised the new legislation associated with aquaculture. For months we have been told that it is being drafted and discussed with the industry. I might add that it is the height of rudeness that at this stage the Government has not bothered to discuss the legislation with the members of the select committee—certainly not the National members. It has not tabled it in Parliament. 
Phil Heatley 
: Or regional councils. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Mr Heatley says that it has not discussed it with regional councils—the very organisations that will be required to implement it. So I suspect despite assurances from the previous Minister of Fisheries that the legislation has not been drafted and that it will not be tabled in the House in the near future. We all know why—the aquaculture legislation has become tied up in the seabed and foreshore issue and we know that the Government does not have a policy on that. Helen Clark says one thing and the very next day Margaret Wilson in the House says something completely different. I do not know what the policy is on the seabed and foreshore. David Benson-Pope nods his head to say that he does not know either. I accept that because I do not think anybody does. 
Until that issue is resolved the Government cannot define the aquaculture legislation necessary table it in the House or get it before the select committee so that we can call for submissions and give the opportunity to the industry to comment on the legislation so that we can try to get the industry alive again. 
One of the most moving submissions we had was from a man from Christchurch Brad Govan who manages Pacifica Seafoods—in Mr Anderton’s electorate interestingly. He said that he has been wooed by South American countries and by Australia asking him with his expertise to go away from New Zealand and establish aquaculture in Chile and Australia. Mr Benson-Pope is surprised by that. He has had that portfolio only a couple of weeks so maybe he was not aware of that submission. I invite the Minister to have a look at the submissions because while I quote Brad Govan he was but one of many people in the aquaculture industry who said that the opportunities for them to establish business in countries other than New Zealand were available. In some places they were being encouraged with payments. 
What is the Government’s response? It is: “Well if they want to go somewhere else that’s their business.” I have a quote from the previous Minister—no wonder he was sacked—in which he said: “Overseas developments were just good business in some cases.” What he is saying is that if those companies want to go overseas to establish aquaculture because this Government does not appreciate their interests and their ability to make money for New Zealand then that is a good business decision. With a comment like that by Pete Hodgson it is no wonder that Helen Clark took the opportunity to fire him. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Take the Marlborough Sounds to England. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: That silly member David Cunliffe said that we should take the Marlborough Sounds to England. We do get a lot of inane comments chucked around from Ministers on occasion but that has to be the most stupid one I have ever heard. Maybe that is the Labour Party’s policy! David Cunliffe should take the next call and confirm whether that is the case. 
We are talking about an important industry employing well over 4000 people with the ability and the will to expand and we have a Government that says that it cannot sort out the problem so it will slap a moratorium on the industry and not allow it to expand. That is what has happened. The Government’s job is to govern. Moratoriums are what Governments do when they do not have solutions. I say to David Benson-Pope that he should develop a solution and get it to the House because I do not want to be debating another extension at the end of this calendar year. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Primary Production Committee by majority be agreed to. 
Ayes 81 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 7; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 31 
New Zealand National 23; ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Question agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 81 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 7; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 31 
New Zealand National 23; ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Bill read a second time. 
Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 2) 
Second Reading 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister of Fisheries) 
: 
 I move  
That the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a second time 
. The purpose of this bill is to implement a settlement agreed between the Crown and the commercial seafood industry concerning the under and over-recovery of conservation and fisheries costs by the Ministry of Fisheries since 1994 and to make technical amendments to the offence provisions to ensure that the law reflects the original parliamentary intent. The bill does not alter existing policy frameworks. 
The bill was referred to the Primary Production Committee on 6 November 2003 and I thank that committee for its careful deliberation. I also thank those who took the time to prepare and submit written and verbal submissions. The comments suggested by the committee are minor and technical and are within the purpose of the bill. The bill’s amendments to the Fisheries Act 1996 are grouped in three parts. Part 1 seeks to validate and implement a settlement agreed between the Crown and the commercial seafood industry concerning the under and over-recovery of conservation and fisheries costs. The settlement involves an agreed sum of $24.6 million to be returned to commercial fishing levy payers by way of a non-discretionary reduction in future levies the validation of historic levy orders and the cost recovery rules for a specified period. The bill also confirms that as Minister of Fisheries I have fulfilled all obligations with regard to costs under and over recovered from 1 October 1994 to 30 September 2002. 
This bill implements through legislation the settlement of a longstanding issue to the satisfaction of industry stakeholders and the Crown. It is the intention of this bill to provide a full and final resolution of all cost recovery issues up to 30 September 2002. This ensures that each and every levy order relating to any period on or before that date may not be the subject of any legal challenge on any basis. This bill will consistent with the intent of the cost recovery regime in the Fisheries Act 1996 provide a benefit to the commercial seafood industry. 
The second function of the bill is to amend section 233 of the Fisheries Act 1996 to ensure that the law reflects the original parliamentary intent. This section contains the Act’s highest band of offence provisions and is aimed at serious offending including poaching black market and fraud offences. Recently the Court of Appeal concluded that section 233 was largely ineffective in respect of poaching and black market offending due to a drafting error. The Court of Appeal decided that there has almost certainly been a drafting mistake which has the unfortunate result of making the offence provision ineffective and recommended that early consideration be given to legislative clarification. The amendment would ensure that people who knowingly contravene the Act—including through the black market and poaching—to obtain a benefit or act with intent to obtain a benefit commit an imprisonable offence. 
Finally this bill includes a technical amendment to place beyond doubt that the word “Act” as used throughout the Fisheries Act 1996 includes rules and regulations made under the Fisheries Act 1996. 
A number of pragmatic and minor comments were suggested by the committee—in particular regarding the clarity of the wording of section 265A(4) and the validation of the Fisheries (Cost Recovery) Rules 2001 in respect of the future operation of the rules. The Government supports those suggested amendments. The Government supports this bill as amended by the committee and does not currently intend to move amendments at the Committee stage. 
In summary this bill will implement a settlement agreed between the Crown and the commercial seafood industry concerning the under and over-recovery of costs and will make technical amendments to the offence provisions to ensure that the law reflects the original parliamentary intent. The bill does not raise any issues relating to recreational or customary fishing. It will contribute to the effective and efficient management of New Zealand’s fisheries. 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 The National Party will support this bill and it is a great pleasure for me to inform the new Minister of Fisheries what this bill is about. This bill ensures full and final settlement of historic under-recovery and over-recovery of levies that were underspent by the Ministry of Fisheries and the Department of Conservation over a number of years. Fishers have given money to the Department of Conservation and the department has made out it has done lots of work shifting paper and running around the countryside pretending to shoot possums. The department has also involved itself it says in fisheries issues but actually it has never done the work. That has been discovered the Government has admitted it and it is quite happy to pay back $24.1 million. We support that. We think there is justness in that. 
I remind the new Minister of Fisheries who clearly does not know a lot about this bill that the cost-recovery regime was first introduced into fisheries legislation in 1994. That regime allows the Crown to recover the costs of fisheries services and conservation services associated with commercial fishing. Those are research services to do with commercial fishing and monitoring services—such as how many seabirds if any are killed how many marine mammals are killed by fishing industry craft and that type of thing—and they were able to charge levies to pay for that work. The Minister of Fisheries in each year has to have regard for how much levy was collected in a previous year how much work was actually done and whether less work was done and the money was not spent as in that case in the following year the levy charged has to be less. If in a particular year more work was done and more money was spent then in a following year less has to be charged. That is what is in the legislation. Unfortunately during those particular years—most of them I might add just quietly under a Labour Government—too much levy was collected and never spent but the levy was not reduced in following years. [ 
Interruption 
] That is basically the Labour Party’s approach to tax: tax too much bank it do not spend it on the taxpayer and certainly do not pay it back. 
There was recent recognition of a failure to consider historic under-recovery and over-recovery of levies in previous years. We have acknowledged that. Unfortunately because it had already happened Parliament had to traipse back in 2002 and pass the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Act which confirmed that the collection of those levies was legal and the deal done behind the scenes with the fishing industry was: “We’ll pay you back the $24 million as long as you can say you agree that we can say it’s legal.” We were happy with that. National supports the bill. It fulfils an agreement coming out of that Act and it has wide industry support. Certainly arguments put forward by the Seafood Industry Council on behalf of the industry were very sound and we support the bill for that reason. 
Opposition to this bill has come from those who believe that the distribution of the levies—the redistribution in future years of the $24 million—should go back to those who paid the levies in the first place. In other words a whole lot of fishers paid the levies in past years and we are paying the money back so we should go back to those individuals and give them the money back individually. On the face of it that sounds fair enough. However the argument for that ignores a whole lot of things. It ignores that the settlement we are making is consistent with the cost recovery regime whereby levies are collected in a present year and paid back to levy payers in a future year. In other words if a fisher is no longer a levy payer that fisher does not get the refund—but also does not get the charges. So if the fisher has got out of the industry in the meantime even though he or she has paid those levies the fisher does not get the money back but also that fisher does not have to pay back any debt. We get that situation all the time. Members will recall situations when local electricity trusts have paid out capital funds to those drawing electricity from the grid. We know that those people consuming electricity on a particular day received a cheque. It might have been a $500 cheque from their electricity trust. It was not the person who owned the house 2 weeks previously 2 years previously or 20 years previously who received the cheque; it was the person who was drawing electricity on the day and who paid the accounts. That is the way things are done in New Zealand. That is the first issue—with the cost recovery regime under-recovery is to be debited or credited to a future period. Everyone in the industry understands that. 
Further the Act takes a holistic view. It is concerned with the benefits that the conservation and fisheries services give to the whole industry. In other words levies are charged to benefit the whole industry so fisheries research is not made on an individual fisher but on the whole fishing industry—whether on snapper fishers oyster farmers deep sea fishers fishing for hoki or whatever. The point is that levies are collected to benefit the whole industry not an individual fisher. Consequently levies are drawn for the whole industry and are returned to the whole industry—not to an individual fisher. The services certainly were never for individual fishers and the cheque is not either. 
Also raised at the select committee—and I thought it raised a reasonably fair argument—was the matter of those who are still paying off fisheries-levies debts. In other words they were charged a levy they could not pay it at the time and they are still paying it off today. We have suddenly found out that those levies should never have been paid in the first place. Fishers were over-charged. Should they still be paying back that debt? We know that the debt was generated by a levy that was unfair. Yet we are making fishers today pay the debt back. That seemed like a fair argument. I asked the Minister of Fisheries to tell me the total owed by businesses or individuals who are paying cost recovery levies in arrears to the ministry due to levies incurred during that period when they should not have been charged. 
 The debt is about $37000. I asked what the highest debt was; it is about $9000. I asked what the lowest debt was; it is $11.20. Should they still be paying back those debts that were generated and incurred? Interestingly the Ministry of Fisheries has outstanding debts of $351000 currently and no interest at all is charged on that and $37000 of that is on these levies that were drawn during that time. Should we write off the debt? The select committee and the National Party agreed that we should not. Our reasoning was that there are a whole lot of people who did pay those levies. They might have borrowed from a bank to pay those levies. They might have sold their houses to pay those levies. Why would we forgive those who have bad debts and are paying them back now yet not forgive those who did actually pay those levies? 
We agree with the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 2). National will certainly be supporting it. We believe that these levies were collected for the industry as a whole and should be paid to the industry as a whole. We believe that these levies were drawn in a past year and should be returned in a future year to current levy payers. We believe that those levy payers who have outstanding debts should still pay back those debts simply because others have paid theirs. Why should those who have not paid back the debt be forgiven when a lot of others have paid the debt? We support the bill. 
JANET MACKEY (Labour—East Coast) 
: 
 I am pleased to support this legislation. I will comment on a couple of points that my colleague on the committee Phil Heatley raised. It is true that the industry was over-levied; it is true that some of those people are no longer fishing and it is true that some of those people are still paying off a debt to the Ministry of Fisheries. However I would point out that there were other people who paid the debt immediately by taking out loans by borrowing and by mortgaging their houses. 
There is one other point I would make though and that is that most of the people who were paying the levies were fishing off individual catch entitlements. They paid that levy only on the fish they caught. But obviously there was another group that was fishing off a quota species. Those in that group paid the levy on their quota as opposed to the number of fish they caught so if they did not go fishing that year and they held quota they still paid that levy. The easy answer would be to say that we will wipe that debt but we cannot do that because it would be manifestly unfair to all of those fishers in the industry who paid the debt in the past. The other point I would make is that would be consistent with the levying regime in fisheries generally. 
It would be improper I believe for the select committee to have recommended any other alternative. We understand the position that some of those people find themselves in but that is the way that quota has been allocated in the past. It would only create confusion if the committee had sought any other remedy. 
I thank my colleagues on the committee. The bill was dealt with expeditiously and I look forward to its passing. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 Believe it or not because it is relatively new in New Zealand the cost recovery regime and matters relating to any sort of tax or levy—or whatever it is called—on individual fishers are still seen by them as a huge imposition and something to be challenged every step of the way. We are dealing with a very litigious industry here. 
The cost recovery regime as we heard from previous speakers is an unders-and-overs one. It is not an exact science and it has been challenged and fought against numerous times. It is true that this particular cost recovery or payback was rather large and quite a bit more than what should have been levied on these people so paying back that levy in light of the reduction of future levies has become somewhat controversial. 
Earlier on in this saga retrospective legislation was passed through this House that made some of the previous levies legal. There were challenges to that. There were all sorts of arguments and some of our colleagues on the select committee were quite strong in their views about whether collecting levies at that time was legal. Even after the retrospective legislation was passed there were arguments over whether it was legal now. The majority of the committee members thought it was and we have heard previous speakers say that we intend to proceed as the bill was put to us with a few minor amendments. 
I will speak for a moment about the work that was done in respect of these levies. In this case some of it was not done but we will not go into that. It has been the view of fishers throughout history that they are the ones who buy the boats take the risks and go out and find the fisheries. That is all true but as we move into more modern times there are also issues surrounding quota and an understanding that one cannot continuously take whatever one wants from the sea. There is an understanding that what was once considered to be an infinite food source is no longer infinite. 
We have ships the likes of which the early fishers could not have contemplated even in their wildest dreams—bigger than any waka we have ever seen and with fishing techniques that could be related to hoovering the sea floor and sucking up vast tonnages of fish. This has meant that through the Government industry organisations have had to come about and because that has had to happen they have obviously had to be levied. 
I wanted to cover that because even though fishing has gone on since before the time of Christ and beyond and is one of the oldest industries known to humans— 
Hon David Carter 
: What do the Greens want to do? 
R DOUG WOOLERTON 
: What the Greens want to do does not bear thinking about. I want to congratulate Mr Carter on working through some very tricky issues on that select committee. 
Hon David Carter 
: I couldn’t have done it without the member’s help. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON 
: There we go—we are being too kind to each other. 
Fishing is an old industry but in the current context it is relatively new and certainly the quota management system is quite new and quite unique. It is being copied by other regimes throughout the world and in the long term it will be very successful. Fish is not an infinite resource; it is a finite resource. Therefore we have to get into quotas; therefore we have to get into levies to administer those things. Therein lies the problem and it has been resolved in this case by paying forward and taking the cost recovery off future levies. 
I commend this bill and New Zealand First will be voting for it. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of my colleague Ian Ewen-Street who is a member of the Primary Production Committee which has heard submissions on the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 2) but is not able to be here right now. 
The Greens unreservedly support one part of this bill but we have reservations about aspects of the other part which I will detail. Primarily the bill is concerned with closing a loophole in the law and resolving the conflict that has arisen between fishers and the Ministry of Fisheries over the collection and use of levies. Frankly it appals the Green Party that all of the careful time-consuming and undoubtedly dangerous work that was undertaken as part of Operation Pacman—the operation into the illegal taking of paua—has come to virtually nothing on account of a single word. That word or course is “benefit”. It baffles us how selling illegally taken paua could be construed as anything other than obtaining a benefit. 
Interpreting the law is obviously the role of others who are expert in these matters not ourselves but we very much doubt that the interpretation that has been made is one that was intended by this Parliament. We fully support the amendments to section 233 of the principal Act. We hope they will ensure that people caught taking paua—or any other resources—illegally and threatening the livelihood of those who observe the law as well as the sustainability of the biological resources themselves will not be able to escape the law in future. 
As for the levies we are greatly aggrieved that any money collected for fisheries research and enforcement has not been used for its intended purposes and Jeanette Fitzsimons will be speaking more on that at a later opportunity. We agree in principle with the agreement between the Government and industry concerning the need to compensate fishers in some way for their overpayment of levies over a period of years but we take issue with the process by which those levies are to be returned to fishers. 
Although the Ministry of Fisheries claimed to have consulted the industry the reality is that this so-called consultation was confined to forming a working-group through the Seafood Industry Council—a body that by and large represents corporate fishing companies rather than small family operations. The net effect is that small fishers were not part of the so-called consultative process—a very narrow consultative process—their voice has not been heard and we consider that to be a real concern. 
The outcome of crediting future levy payments until catch histories equate to credits is a fine one for large fishing companies that have paid their levies and are still around to have them paid back—at least in part. But a number of small fishers are severely disadvantaged by this process. These are the people who have paid their levies and who have for one reason or another now left the industry. They are not eligible for any kind of refund for levies they paid in good faith and which were not fully utilised. In effect these fishers are having their payments refunded to a third party. 
That we believe is not fair. It is analogous to the tenant of a house who on moving out realises that he or she has been overpaying the rent for the last 8 years. The landlord then looks at the accounts agrees that the tenant has been overcharged but instead of repaying that tenant decides to give a rent reduction to the incoming tenant. Most people would agree that that would be a grave injustice and that the money should be returned to the outgoing tenant. We believe that should apply here. 
In respect of this legislation the Ministry of Fisheries does not seem to agree. It has decided that it would be administratively difficult to do that although it does agree that it would be possible. We should not forget that it was the ministry itself that raised the levy and failed to ensure that it was fully spent on the activities it was intended for— despite fishers raising the issue many times. 
There is no question that fisher people were entirely blameless for what can only be described as a stuff-up. In our view it is incumbent on the Ministry of Fisheries to correct the injustice it has perpetrated on fishers—not to perpetuate and exacerbate that injustice. Surely it is not too difficult to work out just how much each fisher is due and ask them whether they want a cash refund or an exemption from future levies while their credit is drawn down. 
The Greens call upon the Government to see that justice is done ensuring that individual fishers who have now left the industry can be refunded in cash the amount of their levies that were not spent rather than having them in effect refunded to a third party. If that is done the Green Party will fully support this bill. Otherwise we will reserve our decision. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I rise to speak on behalf of United Future on the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 2) and recall an earlier time—at least in my term in Parliament—when this issue although it goes back many many years began to arise in the House during the passage of a Statutes Amendment Bill. The previous Minister of Fisheries came down to the Chamber and gave his word that he would address the issues that had arisen in that statutes amendment legislation and that a full and final settlement would be worked out with the fishing industry. 
I commence my address today by commending him for bringing this bill to the House and for getting it to this stage in its passage. It is pleasing to see that the Minister kept to his word in that regard. There were protracted and complicated discussions with the industry and it is pleasing that he has arrived at some settlement. United Future also extends a vote of gratitude and thanks to all those who have worked hard towards this settlement. It has not been an easy thing to resolve. We have heard many issues raised by speakers here today and all of that adds weight to the fact that it has not been an easy process. There have been a lot of complicated issues to deal with. 
I wish to remark briefly upon two aspects of the bill that I believe are the most salient whose measures to amend are the most common-sense and will improve the lot of all New Zealanders who adhere to a code of fair play and preservation of our natural resources. The first is the move to validate and implement the settlement agreement between the Crown and the industry in respect of the under-recovery and over-recovery of costs. As I said we have heard a great deal on that issue. It has been a complicated one but it is one that is needed to follow due process. United Future is satisfied that the final product has been largely resolved to the satisfaction of most parties concerned. Some of the members may still have some concerns about small issues but in these sorts of matters it is necessary to arrive at a compromise that is addressing the concerns of most. 
This is an important issue which I am pleased has been addressed in a way worthy of this House. It corrects past inaccuracies and allows the fishing industry to move forward. United Future makes the point that it is important the fishing industry is able to move forward because it is vital to our nation’s economy. We believe that this bill is assisting in that process. 
United Future supports the recommended amendment to justify the rules that apply exclusively to the period covered by this settlement which brings finality to the historical levy orders. This will bring a benefit to the industry. We have always held that settlements should have sunset clauses whether they relate to the issues pertinent to this particular bill or to other aspects of the settlement in other areas that we are yet to deal with. 
The second aspect relates to a very small part of the bill but a very important part. It closes the legal loopholes involving illegally obtained seafood. In recent times that has related particularly to paua. This issue as it relates to this bill and as it relates to other areas is one that United Future feels very strongly about and seeks to remedy. This abuse and flagrant contempt of those who breach the law for the ill-gotten gain of one or a few at the expense of law-abiding citizens and the future of one of our greatest natural and economic resources is of grave concern to us as a party. We believe that if this practice is left unchecked it will undoubtedly spell trouble for us and for future generations. 
Many members of the public have seen the television programme  
Coastwatch 
 over recent weeks and it is beginning to raise a number of issues that New Zealanders are becoming concerned about. The programme just last week covered the issue of paua poaching and it showed how difficult it is for Ministry of Fisheries people to actually monitor and apprehend those who are making a very very lucrative profit from abusing our laws and regulations in this country. United Future believes that it is important that the Government begins to take seriously the need to expand our surveillance ability and our monitoring and enforcement ability on our coastal areas in this country because it is enabling at the moment the establishment of organised crime in a poaching syndicate that I believe should concern us all. 
We see organised crime in this country developing in the gangs in respect of the production of P whereby they are getting their hands on an incredible amount of money through that illegal trade. The same is possible and is actually occurring within this poaching of our seafood on the coastal areas of our nation. We believe that it is in the national interest that we should apply more resourcing in the absence of having a proper coastguard service which we believe would be a very excellent thing to look into. We need to see at least some more resources go towards the Ministry of Fisheries so that it may employ more people to monitor and enforce what are some very very good fisheries regulations and laws that need to be enforced otherwise they are accorded very little concern and people begin flagrantly to ignore them. 
This bill closes an illegal loophole that was allowing poachers to escape prosecution because of inaccurate legislative drafting. Zero tolerance is in order here and that should be applied to all. So we support the move to more clearly define the language as to the trade in illegally obtained seafood. 
United Future supports the objective and the principle of the bill as it now stands with Primary Production Committee recommendations included. We thank the select committee for the work it has done in listening to submitters and making some minor adjustments to the legislation. The end result will be of benefit to an industry in need of clear precise rules and regulations that apply to all and leave no people able to escape prosecution if they choose to breach the law whether or not they are ignorant of it. It allows the fishing industry to move on in the knowledge that past wrongs are righted and there is a measure of good faith between the Crown and the industry. 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I rise in support of the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 2) and point out that in the debate on the previous bill I omitted to congratulate our new Minister of Fisheries the Hon David Benson-Pope. I wish him well in his job. This bill—fancy having two fishery bills on the Order Paper!—is one that the industry itself has indicated support for. 
The very critical aspect that the bill will correct is the eliminating of the illegal take of our fisheries. I am thrilled the bill corrects that anomaly. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 As we in Parliament again discuss more fisheries legislation which I do acknowledge the National Party will be supporting today I want to clarify the very reason that we are debating this tonight. If people look at the commentary on the bill there is one very important sentence that sums it up: “We accept that the Fisheries Act 1996 was not implemented as contemplated by Parliament in relation to cost recovery.” That is the very reason we are here now addressing the issues of the over and under recovery of fishing levies. 
I want to congratulate the Ministry of Fisheries and the industry on finding a mature way around this problem. Too often this industry has had a reputation for being very litigious and on this occasion we saw a constructive mature response to which the Government was then able to draft legislation and move from a situation where a mess had developed because the original legislation was not enacted as we intended it to be. We moved to sorting it out instead of having the industry against the ministry in the courts as we have seen with other issues time and time again. 
I also want to take this opportunity of congratulating Peter Murray of the Ministry of Fisheries and his team on the way they helped the Primary Production Committee through this legislation. At all times Peter Murray’s answers were very clear and very concise. I think that it was his input to the select committee that enabled us to get to grips with the issues relatively quickly progress the legislation tidy it up with some amendments pointed out to us by submitters that the ministry and Peter Murray quickly acknowledged were required and present the legislation back today in far better shape than it was when it first arrived in this House. We will be supporting this legislation—the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 2). 
As my colleague Phil Heatley said the levies we are talking about are collected from the industry as a means of monitoring fishing services and conservation. Having set those levies clearly some of that work was not undertaken and that was not credited by the ministry and the Minister as he set the levies for the forthcoming year. We have had a period now since 1996 where the anticipated collation of levies on an annual basis has not occurred. We are before Parliament today passing legislation that means a massive settlement on this issue requires a payment of $24.1 million plus $493543 as recognition for the fact that once the industry and the fisheries come to a solution it will take some time to draft the legislation put it before the House take it before a select committee and pass it into law for those payments to be recognised and credited in the future. 
I want to spend a little bit of time talking about a number of submissions we received from smaller fishers particularly the scallop and tuna fishermen. It was acknowledged by the committee that the joint working-group which worked on and established this final figure was one made up of the larger players in the industry. A number of small players came before the select committee many of whom had operated through the time and had paid the levies back almost 8 years ago. Perhaps some of them left the industry voluntarily. People appeared before the select committee who had been adjudged bankrupt and obviously been forced to leave the industry. 
These people explained to the committee that in their mind one of the reasons they had exited the industry was the high level of levies that had been set against the particular species they were fishing. The committee was certainly moved by those stories. People appeared before us who still owed these levies. They had not paid them in the year in which they were due and they still owed the levies to the Ministry of Fisheries. Yet here we are acknowledging that the levies had in effect been set too high and looking at a way to redistribute the recognised surplus that has been collected. These people because they were no longer part of the industry were not able to share in their opportunity to reap some of the benefits of the settlement. It was a sad situation for the select committee members to cope with. 
But on further investigation I think the select committee arrived at the only fair solution which was to acknowledge that while some people had not paid their levies on time and therefore continued to owe a debt the great majority had paid their levies—and we were unable to obtain information as to whether those people had had to go to the banks or mortgage the house etc. to raise additional money at the time to pay their levies. Why should it be that for the few people whom we could now identify—I think the amount concerned totalled $37662 with 15 fishers—we have found a way by which those people who had not paid on time should be credited an amount of the approximately $25 million and that therefore those who had paid legally and on time would not receive that particular bonus on the same basis? 
It was an issue that the Greens recognised and at one stage they suggested to us that they would not be supporting the legislation. They did argue that there was a means by which the individual amounts could be accredited out of the $25 million but as the officials pointed out to us and I fully accept their argument the costs involved in trying to individualise that and trying to find the people who had perhaps left the industry and not appeared before the select committee—and that would be a significant number of people—would mean most of the $25 million was chewed up in administration so at the end of the day many many people would have got next to nothing. When one considers that argument there was only one way to advance the issue and that was to accept wholeheartedly the recommendation of the joint working-group and that is certainly what the majority of the select committee did. 
I suggest that when Parliament considers the commentary in future years a precedent is created in that at the time the Green member said he would not be voting for the legislation. He then asked whether he was allowed to include a minority report and the committee agreed to accept a minority report from the Green member and that is included in the legislation and the report back before the House today. 
Subsequently the votes will show that the Green member actually then did support the legislation. I acknowledge that Sue Kedgley has said today that the Greens reserve their position. I took the opportunity to check with Keith Locke perhaps 30 minutes ago and he assured me that they would be voting for the legislation. However I think that Parliament has before it the very first commentary reported back from a select committee that will have a minority report but will see all members of the select committee vote for it—and shortly I suspect the whole of Parliament vote for it. I just take the opportunity to make sure that members realise that they are observing history today. 
I shall talk briefly of the other aspect of the clarification of the legislation that was associated with Operation Pacman which was a very good exercise that was carried out. A number of people were involved in illegal fishing and on that occasion they went before the courts. According to the judiciary because ofpoorly drafted legislation passed in the first place most of those people have been either discharged or acquitted and have been able to get off scot-free from that operation. It is a lesson for Parliament that we as parliamentarians and our officials working for us at the select committee process must be very vigilant about the way we draft legislation so that we do not have a situation like this with amendments having to be enacted that clarify it for the judiciary. 
Bill read a second time. 
Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Transitional Provisions and Controls) Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Corrections) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister for the Environment 
: I move  
That the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Transitional Provisions and Controls) Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. The bill was referred to the Education and Science Committee on 18 November 2003. The committee received submissions and undertook a thorough consideration of the bill. The committee reported back to the House on 27 February and recommended that the bill be passed with amendments shown. I thank the chairman and the committee for its timely work on those rather technical matters. 
Generally submitters expressed support for the intent of the bill and several cited examples of substances for which the bill is necessary to provide practical and cost-effective controls. Other submitters raised issues outside the scope of the bill. Those issues are being addressed under the Government’s hazardous substances strategy. The strategy was developed in close consultation with industry leaders and focused on improving workability to enable the Act to serve its purposes better—that is to protect the environment and the health and safety of people and communities by preventing or managing the adverse effects of hazardous substances. 
The strategy identified a number of prioritised actions with the most critical actions delivered first. Enactment of the bill will complete the delivery of those critical actions. The bill’s primary objectives are to enable the practical application of controls to all hazardous substances and to provide for practical management of the transitional period. The bill in providing for those outcomes reduces costs to the Government and industry reduces barriers to innovation and better protects the environment and health and safety of people in communities. 
The select committee made changes to clauses 4 5 10 and 11 as a result of submissions received. It has also inserted new clauses 6A and 6B. The changes to clause 4 include hazardous substances and new organisms enforcement officers among the potential delegates who may decide any application for a licence or permission applied for under the new sections 95A and 95B introduced by clause 6. The changes the committee made to clause 5 clarify that the authority must find that control variations made using the clause result in better risk management outcomes. New clauses 6A and 6B make it explicit that a breach of a condition imposed by a licence or permission introduced under new sections 95A and 95B is an offence subject to enforcement action. 
Clause 10 has been changed to clarify that when transferring substances in groups the authority may assign and vary controls to the groups of substances. That will be vital in assigning effective risk management controls to the 70000 notified toxic substances. Several minor and technical changes have been made to clause 11. The select committee members are to be commended for their efforts. The amendments they have made improve the bill—there is no doubt about that. 
In conclusion the bill includes a number of provisions that though individually modest collectively will provide meaningful reductions in costs to industry and the Government and will reduce barriers to innovation. Importantly the provisions will do so without compromising the level of environmental and health protection afforded by the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. The changes in the bill will ensure that the processes of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act work better without compromising what the Act originally set out to achieve which is a healthy environment for all New Zealanders. I commend the bill to the House. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Transitional Provisions and Controls) Amendment Bill—a bill that National supports and that certainly has a good intent. The bill amends the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. It is important to realise that the purpose of it is to protect communities and the environment from the adverse effects of hazardous substances. There are in the order of 80000 existing hazardous substances present in New Zealand and only about 8000 of them have previously been regulated. Because of that this bill is necessary. 
I was quite fascinated when we heard the submission made by the Ministry of Health to look at the extent of the hazardous substances that are present in everyday life in New Zealand. By definition they are dangerous substances and they must be manufactured used stored transported and disposed of properly. Hazardous substances can obviously cause harm to people in the environment. They may be explosive flammable oxidising corrosive toxic or eco-toxic and they can generate a hazardous substance on contact with air or water. Many hazardous substances are used in everyday life. They include everything from solvents to printing inks and dyes paints adhesives and cleaners and of course they go on to the more obviously hazardous ones which include explosives poisons pesticides and industrial chemicals. Given that in the order of 70000 hazardous substances need to be regulated it is indeed appropriate to do that. 
The reason we support this bill is that its intent is to minimise the cost to business and the Government and to reduce the barriers to innovation by a variety of mechanisms. It is refreshing that the Government has a bill here with the intent of minimising the cost to business. We have seen bills time and time again from this Labour Government that have done the very opposite of that. We only have to think of the Resource Management Act and the absolutely incredible situation that has arisen in New Zealand under it. Beca Carter Hollings and Ferner tells us that organising the planning of a road in New Zealand can take up to 7 years under this Government’s legislation whereas for a similar road in Singapore it takes only in the order of 3 months to get the bulldozers in. That Act is just one example of the many pieces of legislation this Labour Government has imposed on New Zealand that have been very inefficient and very bad for business—the Local Government Act the Climate Change Act and the earlier hazardous substances and new organisms legislation. 
Undoubtedly we want to see predictability transparency and best regulatory practice. Certainly the intent of this bill is to minimise the cost to business and there are three ways that it is being done. Firstly this legislation enables the application of cost-effective controls to hazardous substances; secondly it facilitates the transfer of hazardous substances from transitional controls to the controls under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act by changing the legal processes; and thirdly it broadens the way that exemptions work in order to provide for a smooth transition to the controls under that Act. 
I believe there were 11 submissions on the bill and nine of those certainly supported the intent of the bill. There were some isolated concerns and the Education and Science Committee has worked cooperatively to get most of the concerns sorted out and to make appropriate amendments to the bill. It is important to mention that the submitters included not only the Ministry of Health and various industrial companies but also Federated Farmers. Farmers deal with a lot of hazardous substances in their everyday work. Federated Farmers believe that the current system generally results in a higher level of regulation for using hazardous substances and that this bill is likely to lead to much less in the way of compliance costs for farming businesses. Hence they certainly supported the bill. Federated Farmers believe this bill focuses on assigning more cost-effective controls and allows the Environmental Risk Management Authority much more flexibility to change or remove inappropriate controls. There is no doubt that one of the most difficult things in the situation that the Environmental Risk Management Authority faces is a lack of flexibility so it is worthwhile that that flexibility is being incorporated within the bill. Federated Farmers are confident that the bill will improve the system by enabling use-related controls to be applied when they are considered to be a cost-effective and practical way to manage the risk of using a hazardous substance. 
For all those reasons National is firmly in support of this bill particularly so when there has been an outstanding number of hazardous substances that clearly need regulation—in the order of 72000 of them. In fact in the future we expect there to be something like 100 new substances per year that will need sensible regulations requiring the most cost-efficient way of dealing with them that is appropriate to business. 
There were three particular things that the select committee felt it was worthwhile to comment on. 
Darren Hughes 
: What were they? 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: I am glad that Mr Hughes is interested in that because they are very important. It is very important that the Labour Government takes note of this bill because finally it is doing a small thing to assist the business community rather than the usual thing of putting up obstacles for it. The three matters that the select committee particularly reported on were the assignment of cost-effective controls enforcing permission and licensing controls and varying the controls for substances that are being transferred and finally making some amendments in relation to the transfer of non-hazardous compressed gases. Certainly substances that are not classified as intrinsically hazardous under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act regime can be hazardous in their compressed gas form. 
This is a highly technical bill. It has as one of its aims the minimising of the cost to business; hence National supports it. We look forward to discussing the bill further during the Committee stage. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I stand on behalf of my colleague the Hon Brian Donnelly who chaired the Education and Science Committee which processed the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Transitional Provisions and Controls) Amendment Bill. I wish to make a number of points. This legislation was dumped on to the select committee in a most unsatisfactory way. The chair was informed on the very day of the first reading that the bill would be put to the Education and Science Committee. That in itself was not problematic but the first reading was on 18 November last year and it was not until the Minister Rick Barker gave a speech during that reading that it was announced that the report-back date was to be 14 February. I wish to say on my colleague’s behalf that that is not satisfactory; it treats Parliament with contempt. The closing date for submissions was only 16 January and there was an expectation for a report back 4 sitting days into the new year. There was no consultation whatsoever about that; Parliament was simply told what to do. Everyone else has to consult—except seemingly the Ministers of this minority Labour Government. That is the sign of an arrogant Government which treats this House as a rubber stamp and it is a credit to my colleague the Hon Brian Donnelly that he would not tolerate such challenges to the sovereignty of the House. 
The second point is that there are 80000 hazardous substances. The legislation itself took effect in 2001 and has set a deadline of 2006 to transfer all those substances to the controls that apply under the principal Act. At this moment only 10000 of the 80000 hazardous substances have been transferred. There were 80000 hazardous substances to transfer the legislation was enacted in 2001 and today in 2004 only 10000 of the 80000 have been transferred. What has the Minister been doing? What needs to be done to jolt her out of her stupor? New Zealand First will be voting for this legislation but we say to the Minister that for heaven’s sake she must get a move on. 
The next point is that the select committee heard two very potent submissions that this legislation would not be necessary if the regulations were fixed up. The suggestion that we should shelve the legislation and work on getting the regulations right is not viable. That would simply take too long and certain deadlines would not be met. This legislation and serious remediation of the regulations are both needed. The committee was informed that the work is under way but we in New Zealand First will monitor that work very very closely to make sure it happens. On the basis of present work efforts by this minority Labour Government we have grave doubts as to whether it will be able to complete that work in time. 
One situation that was uncovered during the select committee process was to do with compressed gases. Many gases—for example nitrogen and oxygen—are not in themselves hazardous. However every compressed gas is hazardous because of its compressed state. The committee has recommended amendments to the bill in order to accommodate compressed gases. 
Finally my colleague the Hon Brian Donnelly wishes to thank members of the select committee for going beyond the call of duty and not dancing to the Minister’s tune in order to ensure that this bill has been able to be progressed in a speedy fashion. New Zealand First will be voting for this bill because it is the only sensible thing to do. To frustrate this process would compromise the safety of New Zealanders and put them at risk while using hazardous substances and that is not in the nature of our party. We support this stage of the bill. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I rise to speak on behalf of my colleague Metiria Turei who is not able to be here in the House this afternoon. The Green Party shares the very serious concerns expressed by the member for New Zealand First. Frankly it is an affront to this House to drop legislation in at the eleventh hour just before Parliament rises for the Christmas adjournment and basically to have no consultation. The Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Transitional Provisions and Controls) Amendment Bill can only be described as one of those bills that are rammed through this House. We consider that to be totally unsatisfactory and we say there is really no way that one can pretend there has been consultation on the bill. 
We have other misgivings about this bill. The intention of the bill is all about minimising the costs to business and to the Government. We are talking here as others have mentioned about 70000 notified toxic substances. One would have thought given we are talking about 70000 notified toxic substances there would be something in the purpose clause about the health and safety of New Zealanders but no it is all about minimising costs. I suspect that if we had the time to examine the bill more carefully we may find it is all about minimising costs to businesses that are busily using toxic substances without having had them properly evaluated and without disposing of them properly. We may very well find that this bill provides loopholes for them to continue doing so merrily. 
When we think about the fact that 70000 toxic substances are not currently controlled we should really pause for a moment and just contemplate that. We should let New Zealanders think about the fact that that is so and that many or most of the 70000 toxic substances not currently controlled are in use. They are in our homes our environment our workplaces and there is no regulation of them. Frankly that is scandalous and one would have thought that there would be some urgency about dealing with the situation. But we just heard that even though the Environmental Risk Management Authority has had the power to transfer these substances to the controls that apply under the principal Act for many years now it has managed to transfer only 10000 of the 80000 toxic hazardous substances. Frankly we have to ask ourselves what the Environmental Risk Management Authority has been up to. What priority does it give to the exposure of New Zealanders to 70000 toxic substances that do not even have any controls on them and that are in use in our everyday lives? Is it any wonder that our cancer rates in New Zealand are so high given that we have so many unregulated toxic substances in our midst? 
I have the privilege to sit on the committee that is considering the Building Bill and looking at various aspects of the building code. One of the things that have emerged during the course of the hearings is that none of the building materials that we use in our homes are assessed for their health effects. We know we have flame retardants that are known to be cancer-causing and materials that give off gas and cause a range of health effects. But nobody is bothering to assess the health effects of those toxic substances and most of them have—as far as we can see—very little or no regulation. 
Once can only speculate as to what the 70000 notified toxic substances are that are not currently controlled and one can only speculate too as to where they end up—how they are being disposed of in our land. Are they all ending up in our landfills? We suppose that that is the case. Obviously nobody is bothering to regulate those substances. I presume that many of them are pesticides sprayed on our foods fly sprays and household products as well as building materials. It is extremely disturbing that so many of those substances are not controlled or regulated in New Zealand and that the Government has been so tardy in doing anything about it. Obviously the issue is not regarded as being of any priority. The Government’s only real priority is to minimise the cost to businesses of finally having to have some sort of regulation of those 70000 toxic substances. 
We have huge misgivings about this bill. We will support the second reading but we look forward to some amendments being made at the Committee stage and we will consider our final position based on those amendments. We are concerned that it looks as though the main issue in the bill is the flexibility to business—reducing business costs—and we are worried that sufficient protections and safeguards are not in place to protect ordinary New Zealanders. We are worried about the potential trade-offs between cost-effectiveness and protecting the health and safety of ordinary New Zealanders. We have huge misgivings about this bill—about the way it has been parachuted into Parliament the lack of consultation the foot-dragging way that the Environmental Risk Management Authority has dealt with the issue and the shocking and frankly scandalous situation in New Zealand whereby we have 70000 notified toxic substances that are in use in our everyday lives but that are not currently controlled. That is a scandal. We hope that this bill will do something about it but we worry that all it will do is to reduce the cost to businesses by providing loopholes for businesses in dealing with the many toxic substances that are imported and in use here in New Zealand. 
BERNIE OGILVY (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to support the second reading of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Transitional Provisions and Controls) Amendment Bill. The bill has a number of features and I will speak briefly on a couple of them. 
The Education and Science Committee when it considered the bill answered many of the questions and objections that the previous speaker raised. It would have been of greater use to the Greens if they had had somebody participating at and contributing to that committee process. Ms Kedgley would have then received answers to her questions which are legitimate. I am happy that the Greens will support the second reading. 
One of the ways that cost reductions are planned in this bill is simply for the Environmental Risk Management Authority to delegate its powers so that—as has been so rightly pointed out—it will be possible for those 70000 notifiable toxic substances to be reclassified by June 2006 and stored and labelled correctly. The provisions to ensure proper labelling and definition of each of those substances are a major part of this bill. 
There are technical amendments which others have brought out and I do not want to go into. There is a matter associated with the disposing of onerous property that relates to matters of insolvency and bankruptcy and I am really thrilled that was highlighted in the considerations of the select committee. 
United Future will support the second reading of the bill. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 This bill reflects a scandalous level of implementation of the 1996 hazardous substances legislation. I emphasise to the House just how far behind the eightball we are in terms of implementation of the principal Act. Eight years after the Act was passed of the 80000 toxic substances that are used in New Zealand only one-eighth—10000 of them—have been registered. If we maintain the pace that has been set over recent years I have worked out that we will meet the transitional requirements of this legislation in the year 2066. I do not know whether Mr Hunt will still be here—the Speaker has advised me that he thinks he will be considering retirement by that stage. I simply point out that after 8 years of transition we are only one-eighth of the way in terms of the registration of hazardous substances and this bill has to be seen within that context. 
So many areas of government are so far behind the eightball. This is an inefficient Government that is making no progress on these sorts of basic issues. We cannot say it is moving at a snail’s pace because a snail would be supersonic compared with the rate at which this bill is being implemented. We were advised back in 1996 that the legislation could be fully implemented by 2002. It is now 2004 this bill provides for full implementation by 2006 and I think that one would have to be an extreme optimist to believe that we could meet its requirements by that year. 
I endorse the comments made by MP Dail Jones on behalf of Brian Donnelly about the shonky process this bill has gone through. It has been rushed it has been truncated and it has not been a thorough process. My concern is that when complex technical bills of this sort are rushed through in this sort of process it is inevitable that there will be mistakes and errors. I bet any member of this House that we will be back with another hazardous substances amendment bill before the end of this year to pick up the latest mistakes. 
I want also to express some concern about the lack of international integration. A range of hazardous substances are used in New Zealand in every nook and cranny in industry and some chemicals may be used by only one individual business—and constituents have come to me with examples of an individual chemical of which they are the only user in New Zealand. In my view with the expensive process that is required it would be far better to integrate our hazardous substances regime with that of Australia. To have a completely separate process for a little country of 4 million people does not do us justice. I know that the Green Party is all upset about Food Standards Australia New Zealand but in my view the authority is doing a more thorough job of ensuring the safety of food. In my view the same sort of approach is required to this area of hazardous substances and to expect that New Zealand would have on its own the sort of high-level skills to make assessments on the 80000 different substances used in New Zealand industry is somewhat naive. We need to look to an international forum—in my view Australia—to get a greater degree of integration in this area. I hope that is where we might head in future. 
Yes there are some provisions in this bill which is being rushed through that do make good sense but we are a long way behind the pace in implementation of this new Act. I encourage the Government to look to integration with Australia because I do not think it is possible for New Zealand alone to provide a proper regime for the regulation of hazardous substances and new organisms. 
Bill read a second time. 
Amended answers to Oral Questions 
Question No. 4 to Minister 2 March 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 In answer to a primary question in the House on Tuesday I said on the advice of New Zealand Trade and Enterprise that the cost of an October 2002 trip to Tongariro by Brunswick Corporation’s chief executive officer George Buckley was $4393.34 GST exclusive and that the total cost of the 2002 visit which resulted in a $56.1 million investment in Navman New Zealand Ltd and other multimillion-dollar New Zealand - based investments was $20041.35. I have been advised by New Zealand Trade and Enterprise this afternoon that these figures were incorrect as they inadvertently omitted a $239.50 reimbursement to Brunswick Corporation for a deposit paid to the Tongariro Lodge. The correct figures should have been $4632.84 and $20280.85 respectively. In response to a supplementary question I said that Navman had created 200 jobs in this country. I am now advised that the number of jobs created by Navman following the investment by Brunswick Corporation is actually more than 200 but that number consists of 63 jobs created in New Zealand with the balance of jobs in France Italy Belgium and Germany where Navman has since opened offices and in Australia the United States and the United Kingdom where Navman has expanded its existing offices. 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can I seek the assurance of the Minister that he will also be correcting his written replies to questions? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Hon Jim Anderton indicated “Yes” to that. 
The House adjourned at 5.37 p.m.