Volume 686 Week 30 - Tuesday 4 December 2012(continued on Wednesday 5 December 2012)Text is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVolume 686 Week 30 - Tuesday 4 December 2012(continued on Wednesday 5 December 2012)[Sitting date: 04 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7081. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Tuesday 4 December 2012(continued on Wednesday 5 December 2012)Antarctica (Environmental Protection: Liability Annex) Amendment BillSecond ReadingHon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Conservation)on behalf of theMinister of Foreign Affairs: I moveThat the Antarctica (Environmental Protection: Liability Annex) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. This bill was introduced to the House on 20 August 2009. The bill implements a liability framework for environmental emergencies that occur in the Antarctic Treaty area. This framework is set forth in annex VI to the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty which was adopted in 2005 following 13 years of negotiations.Antarctica faces some serious challenges. There is a trend of increased human activity in the area both governmental and non-governmental. The risks of detrimental environmental impact caused by this human activity in Antarctica have increased. Over recent years we have witnessed several incidents involving vessels in the Antarctic Treaty area. In the Ross Sea region alone three vessels have sunk over the last two summer seasons.Under the bill vessel operators not including fishing vessels pursuing activities in this fragile part of the world will be held accountable for their actions that give rise to environmental emergencies incentivised to improve their operating standards and required to take appropriate preventative measures.Under the bill any New Zealand operator whose activities give rise to an environmental emergency in the Antarctic Treaty area will be required to notify the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade of that emergency and to take prompt and effective response action to the emergency. To support and reinforce these requirements the bill introduces new offences of failing to take appropriate action.Where a New Zealand operator fails to take prompt and effective action in response to an emergency caused by its activities the bill imposes liability for the costs incurred by another annex party where that party has taken action that should have been taken by the New Zealand operator. Where no other annex party has taken any action in response to an environmental emergency arising from the activities of a New Zealand operator an order from the High Court can be sought directing the New Zealand operator to pay the cost of the response action that should have been taken into an environmental protection fund administered by the Antarctic Treaty secretariat.Liability is strict and attaches to both State and non-State operators. As such proof that the operator was negligent or otherwise at fault is not required. Liability is limited under the bill. The current limit set under the annex amounts to approximately US$1.5 million for environmental emergencies involving a ship of 2000 tonnes or less and additional liability based on an incremental scale for ships of more than 2000 tonnes.For environmental emergencies not involving a ship the maximum liability is approximately US$4.5 million. Liability cannot however be limited where an operator commits an act with intention of causing an emergency or with recklessness with knowledge that an emergency would probably result. The liability limits set in the annex can be amended by the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting which meets once a year.The strict liability approach is designed to incentivise operators to reduce the risk of their activities causing environmental emergencies. In this regard the annex alsoobliges parties to take preventative measures to reduce the risk of environmental emergencies to establish contingency plans for these and to carry insurance or a financial guarantee to cover the prescribed liability limits. These requirements will be implemented through conditions or ministerial directions which will be attached to notifications by the Minister of Foreign Affairs in respect of required environmental impact assessments.The bill was considered by the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee which reported to the House on 26 November 2009. The committee received four written submissions on the bill and heard one oral submission. The submissions that the committee received emphasised the importance of environmental protection in the Antarctic and were broadly in support of the bill. The committee recommended unanimously that the bill be passed without amendment.Annex VI will enter into force once it has been approved by all 28 Antarctic Treaty consultative parties including New Zealand. The bill and the annex that it implements will play an important role in promoting and improving the operating and safety standards in Antarctica and in protecting the fragile Antarctic environment at a time when it faces increased risks from human activities.New Zealand an original signatory of the Antarctic Treaty has been a leader when it comes to the protection of the Antarctic environment. We played a leading role in chairing the negotiations leading to the adoption of the liability annex in 2005. The adoption of this bill is consistent with that leadership and our longstanding support for environmental protection in Antarctica. I commend this bill to the House.Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): The Government certainly has not been in a hurry to pass this bill the Antarctica (Environmental Protection: Liability Annex) Amendment Bill. It was introduced 3¼ years ago. In fact it went through the select committee process very rapidly indeed. It was reported back to the House in November 2009. So for over 3 years this bill has languished on the Order Paper. The Government really needs to look at how it is managing its legislative agenda when it cannot pass legislation that sends an important signal. New Zealand is as the Minister of Conservation claimed seen as a leading country in terms of environmental protection in Antarctica. Every party in the House will support this piece of legislation but for some reason it has sat on the Order Paper for 3 years and no explanation was offered by the Minister as to why that is the case.Labour supported the introduction of this bill it supported its passage through the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee and it will be supporting the passage of the bill into law through its remaining stages today. The bill amends the Antarctica (Environmental Protection) Act 1994. It does so to implement New Zealand’s obligations under annex VI to the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty Liability Arising from Environmental Emergencies. The origin of this particular protocol was back in Labour’s time in 2005 when the 28thAntarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting adopted an annex dealing with environmental emergencies occurring in the Antarctic.Quite a number of members of this House will have visited the Antarctic. Everyone who has been down there would have been just absolutely amazed at the pristine nature of an environment that is incredibly fragile and incredibly important to the world. And it is right that New Zealand with its activities at Scott Base in the Ross Sea area should be a leading country promoting the protection of the Antarctic environment.Back in 1959 New Zealand was very proudly one of the original signatories to the Antarctic Treaty. I want to talk just a little bit about this because it was a remarkable treaty for the time. Just think back to 1959 when the world was in the middle of the Cold War. It was at the worst stages of the antagonism between the Soviet bloc and theUnited States and the countries aligned to it. This treaty declared that “Antarctica shall be used for peaceful purposes only.” That was the guiding principle of the treaty. It prohibited the establishment of military bases in the Antarctic it prohibited the testing of weapons there and it prohibited the dumping of any nuclear waste in the territory. It was a proud moment for the world. It showed actually that in the midst of the Cold War you could establish a model for international cooperation.In 1991 there was a further major milestone achieved. It was the Madrid Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty—a protocol to the treaty that was concluded in Madrid in that year. That provided for comprehensive protection of the environment in the Antarctic. It set aside the Antarctic as a natural reserve devoted to peace and science. That also building on the original 1959 treaty was a major milestone.The liability annex that we are debating today in the House was adopted in 2005. It sets out the rules and procedures relating to liability for damage that arises from activities taking place there. We played a leading role in the negotiation of that liability annex at the time when I was Minister of Foreign Affairs. In fact New Zealand was the chair of the negotiations.This bill implements the obligations that we signed up to in those negotiations. It requires operators—that is those who are conducting or organising Antarctic activities—to take prompt effective action when environmental emergencies arise from their activities. The New Zealand operators must notify the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade if they cause or if they discover an environmental emergency. If an operator fails to take prompt effective response action the annex party may do so and the defaulting operator must reimburse the costs to the annex party. The High Court is empowered to order the operator to pay an amount representing the costs that were incurred. This is paid into an environmental protection fund administered by the Antarctic Treaty secretariat.Failure to notify appropriate authorities or to take prompt and effective action has sanctions that are set out with terms of imprisonment I think of up to 2 years and/or a fine. I have got to say that those sanctions are not going to be the most effective deterrent. The most effective deterrent will be the reputation of the operator because the wrath of the world will descend on anybody who desecrates an environment as important and fragile as that in Antarctica. The bill sets out situations in which an operator is exempt from liability and it also imposes a financial limit on liability for emergencies involving a ship—that is the equivalent of US$1.5 million and US$4.5 million for other environmental emergencies.This bill is a positive step though it is not sufficient in itself to protect the pristine natural environment of Antarctica which could be threatened for example by oil spills from the increasing number of tourist ships that visit the region or indeed from fishing vessels. We have entered into an obligation to implement the liability annex and it is actually past time for us to finally do so. As I mentioned in introducing my comments this bill is now 3¼ years old. It was introduced a long time ago and it passed quickly through the select committee. Maybe the next speaker from the National Party side can explain why it has languished on the Order Paper and not progressed because I can see no reason why that should have been the case.Dr Paul Hutchison: It never happened under Labour!Hon PHIL GOFF: No no actually the Labour Government as Paul Hutchison so nobly admits was very active in passing legislation. It got legislation through and actually it was the party that organised and led the negotiations for the very important annex that we are recognising today in this legislation to actually pass through.The Antarctic environment is vulnerable and it is fragile and it is the more so because actually there is an increasing number of visitors going to Antarctica—something in excess of 50000 a year. That creates real threats to an environment that is as fragile as the ice sheet down there is. It is also becoming a magnet in terms of a much larger number of countries wanting to establish a permanent presence there. We should be leading by example and the delay in passing this legislation is not leading by example. We need the treaty to be ratified by all of the consultative parties and we should be leading the way so that this annex comes into effect as quickly as possible.Parliament can and should remedy the long delay in passing this legislation by putting it through its remaining second and third readings today. I welcome the legislation and I welcome the signal it sends that New Zealand continues to take very seriously its obligations in the Antarctic—in particular in relation to the protection of the environment there.JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa): It is a pleasure to rise and speak on this bill the Antarctica (Environmental Protection: Liability Annex) Amendment Bill because I along with all New Zealanders value our clean green Kiwi image and believe we should do our part in being an environmentally responsible member of our region.The last speaker might do well to reflect on who was responsible for progressing this legislation back in 2005 when as I recall that speaker claimed responsibility for New Zealand chairing the negotiations that led to this amendment bill. I think the foreign Minister at that point was someone called Phil Goff and I presume that that Phil Goff had 3 years between 2005 and 2008 to secure that outcome when he churlishly sits across the House and accuses us of sitting on our backsides. Well look in the mirror Mr Goff—look in the mirror—because I have sat here for the last 12 months watching members on that side of the House doing their level best to stifle democracy through filibustering and I have watched them sit here with all sorts of social engineering legislation and other things which they have valued as of a higher priority than this piece of legislation that we are progressing today.Dr Paul Hutchison: Too busy stifling democracy.JOHN HAYES: Yes Dr Hutchison. They have been too busy stifling democracy. New Zealand is a trading nation and we depend on our relationships with other countries to lift economic performance. Global agreements such as the Antarctic Treaty are part of ensuring our presence and reputation as a responsible nation that pulls its weight globally.As Mr Goff notes the bill went through the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee with totally unanimous agreement and the bill was reported back with no amendments at all. I think that is a credit to ex-colleagues of mine in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade who drafted this bill and to the Minister of Foreign Affairs who brought it to the House. The passing of this bill as the Minister has said will enable New Zealand to formally approve the Antarctic liability annex but it will not enter into force until it has been approved by all 28 treaty consultative parties including New Zealand. We are one of the 12 original signatories to the Antarctic Treaty which was signed I think in Washington in about December 1959.The National Government supports this bill very strongly. We support not only the fulfilment of our international obligations set up under this protocol but also the protection of the Antarctic’s unique environment. The bill is consistent with the Government’s foreign and environmental policies.The environmental issue is extremely important. I was talking to a scientist here in Parliament late last week who was explaining to me that she had been down in the Dry Valleys and tyre tracks were clearly visible left by Sir Edmund Hillary in I think1963. Human footprints in the Antarctic are there for the long haul. We of course have strong historical links with Antarctica—in exploration in research and in environmental protection. Scott Base has been New Zealand’s permanent base in Antarctica since 1959.The annex is an important part of our environmental protection regime and we strongly support it. We are a party to the Madrid Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty including the treaty parties in Madrid Spain in 1991. This protocol provides for a comprehensive regime for the protection of the Antarctic environment as well as dependent and associated ecosystems. Under the protocol Antarctica is designated as a natural reserve devoted to peace and science.I really support this legislation. It is an excellent piece of legislation and it is a great pleasure seeing it go through the House this morning. Thank you.GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour): It is interesting to follow on from Mr Hayes who did actually completely fail to answer Phil Goff’s question of exactly why it is that the Antarctica (Environmental Protection: Liability Annex) Amendment Bill having gone through the select committee deliberation under Mr Hayes’ excellent chairmanship of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee languished on the Order Paper for another 3 years.I note that the Order Paper currently contains 12 bills that have been sitting there for at least 2 years. It is just plain poor management. Mr Hayes tried to suggest that this is the kind of thing that might have happened under a Labour Government. That is not true. Michael Cullen worked very hard to ensure that bills made their way through in a timely manner with the exception I might say of the trout bill which did stay on the Order Paper for many years—with that exception. This National Government has shown a consistent lack of ability to make progress on legislation and this bill is a very good example of that.All parties in this House I am sure will support this bill. It has at its heart an important part to play in the goal of protecting and preserving Antarctica its critical role in our planet and its critical role in our part of this planet. What this bill does is ensure that where there are activities that may give rise to emergencies there is a process in place for notification of that and that there is an appropriate response when people fail to do what they need to do in terms of both preventing emergencies and notifying about them. It is the kind of legislation that clearly we need to pass in this House. People listening to both the Minister of Conservation and John Hayes might get the impression that this Government has a strong and resolute commitment to New Zealand’s role in protecting and preserving the Antarctic.Kris Faafoi: Smoke and mirrors.GRANT ROBERTSON: It is as my colleague Kris Faafoi says smoke and mirrors. Fundamentally other countries in the world look towards New Zealand as a leader on the Antarctic. They do that not only because of our proximity to the Antarctic but because New Zealand has traditionally taken that leadership role. We have taken seriously our job to promote quality legislation in the environment and to show that we have a real commitment. I have to question that level of commitment. John Hayes said that New Zealand wants to be a country that pulls its weight globally on environmental issues. Well what is happening right now in Doha where climate change negotiations are under way and New Zealand is day after day being pilloried for its lack of leadership?Charles Chauvel: The “Fossil Award”.GRANT ROBERTSON: As Charles Chauvel says I think for 3 days now that the “Fossil Award” at those negotiations has gone to New Zealand. Craig Foss puts histhumb up and says he is delighted. That is the National Party’s level of commitment to New Zealand’s international reputation and that is—Kris Faafoi: He’ll be fossilised soon.GRANT ROBERTSON: He is a fossil—do not worry. That is the level of commitment this Government has to international environmental issues. We now have a Government that is at these negotiations and is thumbing its nose at a future global climate change agreement when that is what people look to New Zealand for.Mr Hayes also said that our clean green reputation is important. Why then is this Government constantly undermining that in international fora? It is not only at the climate change negotiations where it is disgraceful that New Zealand has backed away. Mr Key said that he did not want us to be a leader in climate change. He wants us to be a fast follower. Well now we are a disinterested bystander at these negotiations. That is not good enough.If we come back to the Antarctic specifically what we saw during the recent Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources negotiations was that the actions from the Government from New Zealand were frankly too little too late. If we actually are going to have true commitment to the Antarctic and true commitment to protecting the environment we needed to be much more decisive and aggressive in our commitment to ensuring that there was an agreement around the Ross Sea region.Finally after a significant length of time the New Zealand Government decided that it would get alongside the US with its proposal on the marine protected area there but it was simply too little too late. We cannot afford both for the health of the Antarctic and for our international reputation to take so long to make our commitments in this area be it in terms of the marine protected area or be it in terms of passing legislation such as this bill. It is our obligation as a country that has such close links with the Antarctic to be at the head of the pack not lagging behind letting legislation sit on the Order Paper or not proposing and actively working to find a good constructive solution in terms of the Ross Sea region and the marine protected area there.We know the significance of the Antarctic to New Zealand in terms of our commitment to the environment. There is also a strong commitment for us in terms of the work that is done by New Zealand out of Christchurch and to ensure that we retain our reputation as a staunch defender of the Antarctic we need to do significantly better than we have in terms of the legislation that is in front of us now.The level of commitment that New Zealand shows to the Antarctic is something that over the years we have been proud of and I just caution against this Government seeing our role in the Antarctic as something that it can continue to provide a flippant kind of leadership towards. We need it to be far more decisive.On the subject of climate change and its relationship to the Antarctic—Mr Hayes alluded to this as well—there is nowhere on our planet where the effects of climate change are more obvious than the Antarctic. This Government’s lack of leadership on climate change its undermining of the emissions trading scheme and its failure to take a role at the international level that I think most New Zealanders would see as appropriate continues to undermine the health of the Antarctic which in turn undermines the health of our planet. If the National Government cannot get its head around the importance of taking decisive action on climate change then it cannot stand in this House and say that it has a commitment to the protection and preservation of Antarctica.So on this side of the House we are happy to support this bill. We believe that it has been a long time coming and we want to see more decisive action from this Government on Antarctica. I actually think there is willingness across the House to domore in terms of our relationship if the Government is prepared to take a leadership role but having a bill like this sit on the Order Paper for 3 years is completely unacceptable and shows a lack of commitment from this Government on those issues.GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora Mr Speaker.Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I rise to support the Antarctica (Environmental Protection: Liability Annex) Amendment Bill. Antarctica is a special pristine place. The health of the world can be measured in the ice kilometres thick of Antarctica. It is a place that New Zealand has a special relationship to both historically and environmentally and as a pioneer of protecting it internationally.Unlike some of the members who have touched on the debate who have been privileged enough to travel to Antarctica I have not been fortunate enough to be down there but I have seen some of the amazing cinematography in the filmThe Last Ocean. This is a powerful film which I urge all members of Parliament to see by an esteemed and now award-winning New Zealand film-maker who uses the film to argue quite coherently quite logically and quite passionately for protection of a region that is of special significance to New Zealand which is the Ross Sea. New Zealand unfortunately has pioneered and is leading the exploitation of the dangerous and I believe unscientifically based current toothfish fishery down there. I guess a special point for you Mr Assistant Speaker Tisch is that I am disappointed that I have not been able to show this film to members of Parliament despite repeated requests. Unfortunately the Green Party along with New Zealand First and the Labour Party has not been able to screen this film. Despite my challenge to numerous National members to join us so that we can show this film I hope you Mr Assistant Speaker can allow this special film which is a real New Zealand art work to be shown. I think that if more of us had been able to go down there or had seen this film we would know the importance and the challenge that we have facing us.Antarctica quite plainly is under threat. It is not just climate change which we have heard about today.Shane Ardern: Is the member going down in a sailboat?GARETH HUGHES: I will respond to the interjection: I would love to go down in a sailboat. I would go down tomorrow if you would give me a berth. I would love to go down and I think that every Kiwi should get the chance. But this is one of the problems. Now we have tens of thousands of people going down to Antarctica every year. It is not just the climate change it is not just the fishing boats; it is those tens of thousands of tourists. What we have seen are numerous concerning incidents.Just looking through some of the history what we have seen in 2008 is theMV Ushuaia running aground. We have seen theOcean Nova grounded. We have seen in the last couple of years theJung Woo 2 theSparta and tragically theNo. 1 In Sung which lost 22 lives down there. We have seen the Japanese whaling ship theNisshin Maru explode and catch fire which resulted in the loss of life. We have seen theArgos Georgiadrifting for 15 days when it lost power. We have seen a litany of accidents happening down there many of them avoidable so it is good that we are debating this legislation which deals with some of those real growing threats facing Antarctica and the oceans around it.So what this bill does is implement annex VI to the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty. This annex was adopted in 2005. It establishes the liability regime. It has a financial limit. It requires New Zealand operators that give rise to or discover an emergency to notify the New Zealand Government and it provides penalties and offences for failing to take prompt and effective action. We would have preferred something stronger. This is not a criticism of the previous negotiators who we believe did do a good job but what we do believe is that we actually do need acomprehensive liability regime. What we have seen over the course of theRena was that New Zealand was not prepared. Our liability regime was capped under the Resource Management Act to $600000. What we know is that theRenahas cost New Zealand taxpayers tens of millions of dollars. It is a good example of where we need to have legislative forethought to prepare for liability when we know accidents will happen.I would like to touch on our special relationship with Antarctica. We obviously were the jumping-off spot for many of the discoverers. We were an original signatory back in 1959 and it is important that we do pass this legislation because our turning this bill into an Act does help turn this annex into reality when 28 Antarctic Treaty nations all do likewise. So what we are passing today is the missing piece of the environmental Antarctica protocol which was negotiated in 1991 and came into effect in 1998 and it is good that New Zealand is playing its role in protecting the Antarctic continent.We share Labour’s concerns about the slow response by the Government benches as the bill has been on the Order Paper for an awfully long time. But I guess when you are the Minister of Conservation Kate Wilkinson you are currently sitting on what is the second-longest bill ever to languish in a select committee—the Marine Reserves Bill which is coming up to I think its decade anniversary at a select committee—and I guess if the Marine Reserves Bill is your benchmark she is not doing too badly with this one. I guess the question the Government benches have not answered is why it has languished so long. I do not agree with Labour; I do not think it is just poor management. I think poor management of the House does play a role but I think what we have seen in this current term of the Government is the Government take a very decidedly anti-environmental tack. It has come down very hard. We have seen it walk out of the Kyoto Protocol. We have seen it attack scientists personally. We have seen it wax lyrical about the “clean green” brand likening it to McDonald’s. If there is anything so fatty and sugar-coated and not what it makes out it should be such as a McDonald’s burger I think we are likening it to what the National Party’s vision of the “clean green” brand is.What we have seen is a Minister who is prepared to act as an accessory to the extinction of theMāui’s dolphin so although John Hayes talks about our “clean green” brand we are running it through the dirt. We are seeing the Government take a decidedly anti-environmental turn. Those members are acting as if they were environmental vandals.So we are happy that we are finally getting progress on it. We urge progress likewise on the Marine Reserves Bill. But what we think we need to do is have a discussion now about how we do make this regime more comprehensive. Just lastly I welcome the call by the Labour benches that we should have a cross-party agreement when it comes to the protection of the Ross Sea. It was embarrassing for New Zealand to walk out of the negotiations with the United States Government on protecting the Ross Sea. It was embarrassing that we were seen to be there at the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources negotiations protecting our own narrow small vested fishing interests. We are talking about 0.17 percent of our fishing and our Government was prepared to run that “clean green” brand through the mud but I guess the Labour member Shane Jones knows all about that.It would be good to have cross-party support for protecting the Ross Sea. I think we have a special opportunity now that the Commission on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources has agreed to a second negotiating period next year. This is a real opportunity for New Zealand to now show some leadership. I would love to see the Minister of Foreign Affairs Murray McCully do some active lobbying around theworld. We do have an opportunity. I think the world does want to see greater environmental protection in the marine reserves down there. I believe we can see it happen.So all in all we welcome voting for this bill. We think that extended hours is a good use of the House’s time. Perhaps this could have been adopted earlier. We would like to go a bit stronger and we would open that discussion in the future but it is good to be passing this legislation today. Kia ora.Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua): Thank you for the opportunity to take a short call on the Antarctica (Environmental Protection: Liability Annex) Amendment Bill. The bill went through the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee with unanimous agreement and with no amendments which is indeed a testament to the drafters to the parties to the Parliament and to the Government.Hon Phil Goff: And then languished on the Order Paper for 3 years.Dr PAUL HUTCHISON: I once again hear Phil Goff who was a Minister at the time when the protocol was settled and could have easily expedited this bill in his time—much more frequently. There is no doubt that all New Zealanders very much value our clean green image as Mr Hayes pointed out. I was quite surprised if not amazed to hear those Labour speakers Grant Robertson and Phil Goff talking about climate change because after all it is the National Government that did initiate the global alliance which does show true and relevant leadership in terms of climate change. This was initiated by New Zealand and indeed is very very pertinent to New Zealand and pertinent to the world and a contribution where we can lead and we can make a great difference.This bill deals with environmental emergencies occurring in the Antarctic. New Zealand was one of the 12 original signatories of the Antarctic Treaty in 1959. Today actually marks 53 years and 5 days since that treaty was signed. It just happens to be the day of my wife’s birthday so happy birthday Antonia. She of course is much younger and prettier than that. Under the protocol the Antarctic is designated a natural reserve devoted to peace and science and I do believe that that is absolutely right and proper. At Scott Base we have just seen the completion of the joint project between New Zealand and the US with the three turbines of the wind farm which has reduced the need for diesel by the order of 11 percent and it will continue. This is a great bill. It is highly positive and it is wonderful that the National Government and the Parliament can be rightly proud of it.DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): New Zealand First is also very happy indeed to support this bill the Antarctica (Environmental Protection: Liability Annex) Amendment Bill. I note that the main provisions of it are first of all that it requires operators to take prompt effective action when environmental emergencies arise from their activities and those activities of course are increasing every day in that part of the world. New Zealand operators must notify the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade if they cause or discover an environmental emergency. If an operator fails to do so then another annex party may do so and the New Zealand operator would then have to reimburse those costs. Where no annex party takes any such action the High Court in New Zealand may order the operator to pay an amount representing the costs that would have been incurred had prompt and effective response action been taken. That amount of course is paid into the environmental protection fund administered by the Antarctic Treaty secretariat.The bill also sets out the situations in which an operator is exempt from liability and imposes a financial limit on liability. I am pleased to see that the liability is strict and attaches to both State and non-State operators. I am pleased also to see that the bill removes the requirement for the Attorney-General to consent to civil proceedingsagainst operators since the bill aims to facilitate such actions and requiring the Attorney-General’s approval would be seen as a barrier. I think that those objectives are just what we should be doing in Antarctica and I think it is a good start. Of course a lot more needs to be done.New Zealand has had a very long association with Antarctica. That began of course many years ago—over a century ago now—with the Scott and Shackleton expeditions which were very much supported in New Zealand and in particular where I come from in Christchurch. I remember the 1957-58 International Geophysical Year there—I was just a young child then—and being taken out toHarewood to see theGlobemasters and the other aircraft that were being used in the Antarctic. New Zealanders were then and still are very enthusiastic about New Zealand’s involvement in the Antarctic and seeing that it is kept as a place for peaceful activities and where the environment should be protected. New Zealand has always had a leadership role to play and that continues today. It was one of the first signatories to the 1959 treaty and has maintained an active presence since. New Zealand must always continue to show leadership in the Antarctic and we must always maintain our presence there at Scott Base. I think it is an investment very well made.The issue today of course is the threat to the Antarctic environment from some of the activities we are seeing there. As I have said I am therefore very pleased indeed to see New Zealand support a strict liability regime for operators in the Antarctic. That is no less than should be done and as I have already also said this bill is really only a beginning. It is a very good beginning and New Zealand First is enthusiastic about supporting it but we do think more needs to be done especially in the supervision of activities of all parties in the Antarctic to see that its environment is maintained and protected. The same effort of course should really be put into the huge oceanic area in New Zealand’s economic zone but that is another issue. For the time being New Zealand First will be very happy indeed to support this bill and would like to encourage further action by the Government to ensure New Zealand plays its part in the future in the protection of the Antarctic environment.SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country): Like previous speakers I am very pleased also to be part of supporting the Antarctica (Environmental Protection: Liability Annex) Amendment Bill. It has been interesting listening to the various speeches particularly the Minister of Conservation’s opening comments but it has also been particularly concerning and interesting to listen to our opponents and their contribution and their various references to the New Zealand Government’s lack of focus in environmental issues. I guess it is one of those examples of where sometimes actions speak louder than words.In the previous 9 years of the Labour Government we had a woeful woeful period of environmental legislative protection. We in fact languished. The fable I guess that comes to mind is the one about the emperor who has no clothes. They talked all the time but they actually did nothing. To suggest that in some way New Zealand is now turning its back on the environment is about as shallow and as short-sighted as it is possible to be.There was reference particularly by the former trade and foreign affairs Minister to the Doha round. I look upon the Doha round currently taking place as having similarity to a bunch of drunks going off to another booze-up to talk about the effects of alcoholism. That is how I would look at some of that activity. I wonder how they get there. Do they go by sailboat? Do they ride their bikes or do they fly in jet planes? I wonder how they get there.The only thing that New Zealand has done in recent times in terms of changes in direction is to remove agricultural admissions from the emissions trading scheme. Howby taxing methane emissions from animals were we going to reduce our environmental impact?The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! We’re on the Antarctic.SHANE ARDERN: That is the question and no one has been able to answer that. Mr Speaker in talking about the passing of this bill I have heard a wide-ranging debate and I thought that must be licence for it.As one of my colleagues said New Zealand is one of the 12 original signatories to the Antarctic Treaty which was signed on 1 December 1959 in Washington DC and which we have since then had many other involvements in. This is yet another example of that. I suggest to our opponents over there given that they were involved in the original negotiations—in fact the former Minister who was involved is present in the House—that it is in fact quite unusual that we would be here today after all this time debating this bill given the time that they had to further this important piece of legislation. I am sure the bill would have been passed prior to now if it had not been of course for the fact that they have spent so much time filibustering on all sorts of nonsense that needed no extra time spent on it up until this point in time.This is one of those rare occasions of course where Parliament is unanimous and it is a privilege to be part of it when it is unanimous on something as important as this particular legislation. So I look forward to its passage through Parliament.CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour): I rise to take a call on the Antarctica (Environmental Protection: Liability Annex) Amendment Bill. The Antarctic Treaty came into force on 23 June 1961. As Phil Goff explained to the House it was a unique piece of international law at the time and it remains unique in the sense that it suspended claims to sovereignty over a large part of the Earth’s land surface. It committed the Antarctic region to demilitarisation and to peace.There have been numerous subsequent agreements to which New Zealand has been a party that have furthered the aims and the scheme of the original treaty. One of the most significant of those relates to environmental protection. The Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty was signed in October 1991. It entered into force because it got sufficient member State signatories on 14 January 1998. It is one of the most significant international environment agreements that have ever been concluded. It prevents development and it provides for the protection of the Antarctic environment through five specific annexes. They relate to marine protection flora and fauna environmental impact assessments waste management and protected areas. It prohibits all activities relating to mineral resources except for the purpose of scientific investigation.Where this annex fits into that scheme is that it is the sixth annex to that particular agreement and it relates as previous speakers have said to liability arising from environmental emergencies. It was adopted back in 2005 but it is yet to come into force because not enough nations have yet passed the necessary domestic legislation to allow for ratification.Denis O’Rourke I think commented on some of the provisions of the legislation that will be necessary to bring this particular annex into force in respect of New Zealand law. The reason that the international legal regime relating to Antarctica is unique is that when we ratify a treaty in most cases there is an international legal enforcement mechanism but none exists in respect of Antarctica. Antarctica has no permanent population. It has no enforcement system in its treaties and particularly when it comes to environmental protection the States parties have to enact domestic legislation that permits their courts to provide for enforcement because there is no international machinery. That is why this particular protocol is so significant and why I certainlywelcome along with my colleagues the passage finally of this legislation through the House.I am certainly very glad that we are getting on to implementing the liability annex but as Phil Goff pointed out 3 years on the Order Paper is too long. It is a symbol I think of the casual way with which we are treating a very very important environmental matter. As Grant Robertson said other examples are the way in which we have seen our treaty obligations under the Kyoto Protocol and the second commitment period treated by this Government along with domestic legislation on that matter.Just as we have seen the Prime Minister admit that the “100% Pure New Zealand” brand is simply a marketing exercise as far as he is concerned I was interested to hear Shane Ardern try to rebut our concerns about the laxness of the environmental record of this Government. He claimed that there had been 9 years of inaction when we were in office. Well nothing could be further from the truth. Perhaps Mr Ardern could explain or perhaps one of his colleagues who is about to get to their feet could explain why in 2008 New Zealand stood as a result of the record of the Helen Clark - led Labour Government at No. 1 in the Yale environmental rankings independently put together by a leading United States university. In the 4 short years of this Government we have fallen to No. 14 in that ranking system and it looks like we will fall further.That is the independent evidence about this Government’s stewardship of the environment and of conservation matters. Those members should hang their heads in shame. Although I welcome as I said the final passage of this legislation it has taken too long and if this attitude to the environment continues on the part of that Government it will be a deservedly short-lived one.Dr CAM CALDER (National): Thank you Mr Speaker for the chance to rise to speak on the Antarctica (Environmental Protection: Liability Annex) Amendment Bill. I would just like to rebut my colleague Charles Chauvel. The level of deforestation under the previous Labour Government in 2007-08 was appalling. Our forests were ravaged the length of the country and only under this Government has replanting commenced apace.The Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee passed this bill with unanimous agreement. It has been great to see that this issue which is so important to all of New Zealand has received unanimous support in the House today. New Zealand has huge and strong links with Antarctica in exploration research and environmental protection and we have had Scott Base our permanent base there since 1959.New Zealand is one of the 12 original signatories as we have heard to the Antarctic Treaty which was signed in December 1959 in Washington DC. New Zealand’s governance activities in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean including the Ross Dependency which is fact constitutionally part of New Zealand are overseen by Antarctica New Zealand the Crown entity that maintains New Zealand’s operational presence in research and development in the area for the benefit of present and future generations.The record of international cooperation in Antarctica is a long and strong one and it remains a crucial area for environmental research. It is also as I said an outstanding example of longstanding international cooperation. This bill implements many of New Zealand’s international treaty obligations regarding liability for environmental emergencies in Antarctica. It will also as we have heard previous speakers mention implement New Zealand’s obligation under an annex VI to the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty. I commend this bill to the House.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): This is a 5-minute call.RAYMOND HUO (Labour): I rise to take a call to support this bill the Antarctica (Environmental Protection: Liability Annex) Amendment Bill. I am delighted to support this bill from the Parliament of “100% Pure New Zealand” aiming at protecting the 100 percent pure Antarctic.As my colleagues noted earlier this bill has been languishing on the Order Paper for more than 3 years and during those 3 years the “100% Pure New Zealand” image has been seriously undermined under this National-ACT Government. New Zealand has slipped from first to 14th on the Yale Environmental Performance Index and for our performance trend in recent years we rank 50th as our environment is on the decline. Simply look at our rivers. Simply look at our emissions trading scheme policy initiatives. It is not about only our “100% Pure New Zealand” clean and green image; it is also about our obligations both domestically and internationally.The main purpose of this bill is to implement New Zealand’s international treaty obligations regarding the liability of environmental agencies in Antarctica. New Zealand is one of the 12 original signatories to the Antarctic Treaty which was signed on 1 December 1959 in Washington DC. We have had a close relationship with the Antarctic. We are geographically close to the Antarctic and since 1923 we have maintained our right of sovereignty over the Ross Dependency. New Zealand’s claim to the region was formalised in 1923 when the Governor-General of New Zealand was appointed as Governor of the Ross Dependency by an imperial Order in Council made in London in the United Kingdom.At 14 million square kilometres the Antarctic is the fifth largest continent in area. According toWikipedia there are more than 10 million penguins residing there. This is one of the reasons why this bill is important. It is also important because of the amazing environment that exists there that supports research and exploration and therefore the need for environmental protection.New Zealand first became party to the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty signed by the treaty parties in Madrid Spain in 1991. This protocol provides for a comprehensive regime for the protection of the Antarctic environment as well as dependent and associated ecosystems. Under the protocol the Antarctic is designated as a natural reserve devoted to peace and science.A key aspect of this bill is that it requires New Zealand operators to notify the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade if they cause or discover an environmental emergency. The bill requires operators in the Antarctic to take prompt effective response actions when environmental emergencies arise from their activities. If they fail to do so they will be required to reimburse any second party that reports the emergency or may be ordered by the High Court to pay the costs to the environmental protection fund administered by the Antarctic Treaty secretariat.Approving the liability annex is an opportunity to highlight and promote New Zealand’s support for a strong environmental protection regime for the Antarctic both domestically and internationally. Thank you.EUGENIE SAGE (Green):Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. As a Christchurch-based MP I am pleased to take a short call on the Antarctica (Environmental Protection: Liability Annex) Amendment Bill. Christchurch has very strong associations with Antarctica. It has been the gateway to Antarctic exploration from the very early days it is the headquarters for Antarctic New Zealand and there are a number of fascinating exhibits and artefacts from Antarctic exploration at the Canterbury Museum. Of course vessels bound for Antarctica will often replenish their supplies in the port of Lyttelton and the aircraft leave fromHarewood.As others have noted the Antarctic Treaty signed in 1959 with its focus on the use of Antarctica for peaceful purposes is a model for international cooperation. The continent is the world’s largest wilderness area and there is certainly an internationalexpectation that the highest standards of environmental performance should apply to all who operate there. That is why in 1991 in Madrid the treaty partners agreed to append the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty to establish a protection regime for the continent.This agreement in 1991 included a commitment to negotiate and agree on procedures and rules for liability for any environmental damage. That was eventually negotiated and agreed in Stockholm in 2005. So this bill inserts new Part 5A into the principal Act. New Part 5A sets out the legal liability for damage to the Antarctic environment and it implements New Zealand’s obligations under annex VI to the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty. It deals specifically with liability arising from environmental emergencies. Because it applies just to emergencies rather than establishing a comprehensive regime for environmental damage it was not as broad as environmental groups were urging the partners to adopt. But it will be a significant improvement on the current rules for managing Antarctica.New Zealand chaired the negotiations in Stockholm which resulted in the liability annex. So when the bill was introduced in 2009 New Zealand was expected to be one of the first countries to formally approve the annex by adopting it into domestic law. So we share with Labour the concerns about the delay but we still support the bill and will be pleased when it is passed.The effects of the bill as others have noted will be that New Zealand operators such as tourism operators who discover or who cause an environmental emergency such as an oil spill must immediately notify the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and then respond promptly and effectively. The bill sets out a regime for offences and a mechanism to recover costs if the operator fails to act. And as the Minister noted it does cap liability for various incidents.There were only four submissions on the bill. The Environment and Conservation Organisations of New Zealand sought that it be extended to cover all vessels leaving New Zealand including fishing vessels. That would have been logical given the number of marine incidents we have seen in recent years that have raised the need for a comprehensive liability regime. That includes of course theNisshin Maru which was a whale processing ship in the Ross Sea where an explosion caused loss of life and power in 2007. But the officials’ view and the view of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee was that there was no agreement between the treaty partners on the issue of having a comprehensive liability regime including fishing vessels during the annex negotiations so it could not proceed.That highlights a major problem with the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations which are occurring this week in New Zealand. As with those negotiations if there are any changes to domestic law there is the potential that if those changes have not been agreed by the States parties negotiating in Auckland then there will not be an ability to amend domestic law to provide for that. In this bill there is a lot of support for it and it is being done with a lot of transparency. But agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership and their potential to override domestic law are a major problem. Thank you.Bill read a second time.Third ReadingHon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Conservation) on behalf of theMinister of Foreign Affairs: I moveThat the Antarctica (Environmental Protection: Liability Annex) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.Bill read a third time.Geneva Conventions (Third Protocol—Red Crystal Emblem) Amendment BillSecond ReadingHon CHRIS TREMAIN (Minister of Civil Defence) on behalf of theMinister of Foreign Affairs: I moveThat the Geneva Conventions (Third Protocol—Red Crystal Emblem) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. The bill implements New Zealand’s obligations under the third additional protocol to the Geneva Conventions of 1949. The four Geneva Conventions and their additional protocols represent the core framework of international humanitarian law: regulating the conduct of armed conflicts. They are among the most universal international treaties in existence.The third protocol establishes a new distinctive emblem known as the Red Crystal giving it the same legal recognition and protection from misuse that the Red Cross the Red Crescent and the Red Lion and Sun currently enjoy under the Geneva Conventions framework. Like the other recognised emblems authorised users such as medical personnel may display the Red Crystal to receive protection from hostile acts in situations of armed conflict.The Red Crystal emblem provides an alternative to the Red Cross and Red Crescent emblems and is intended to be free from any national religious cultural or political connotations. The third protocol is seen as a practical solution to a practical problem. Its adoption will allow the Israeli national society theMagen DavidAdom and the Palestinian Red Crescent Society to be admitted to the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies.The adoption of the third protocol creates a more flexible environment by allowing the indicative use of a combination of recognised emblems or the Red Shield of David within the home territory of a national society as long as the emblem or combination of emblems is incorporated within the frame of the Red Crystal. Arrangements like this were not permitted under previous rules.Although the New Zealand Defence Force will continue to use the Red Cross to designate its medical and religious personnel and equipment it is essential that our armed forces personnel recognise the protective use of the Red Crystal emblem by other forces and authorised civilian organisations. It is also time that New Zealand joined the 92 other signatories to the third protocol and the 60 countries that have ratified it in formally recognising the Red Crystal emblem as part of the core framework of international humanitarian law.I thank the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee for its careful consideration of this bill. The committee received one submission from the International Committee of the Red Cross strongly supporting the passage of the bill. The select committee recommends that the bill be passed with amendments and I consider that the committee’s recommendations improve the bill and enhance New Zealand’s domestic implementation of the third protocol.The bill amends the Geneva Conventions Act 1958 so that all the distinctive emblems receive the same legal recognition and protection. The bill also increases the maximum penalty for an offence under section 8 of the Geneva Conventions Act from a fine of $1000 to a fine of $10000. The current penalty was set in 1987 and the proposed penalty is more in line with similar offences for misusing protected symbols.The committee recommended that section 3 of the Geneva Conventions Act be amended to include a grave breach of the third protocol as an offence under the Act. Although the third protocol does not explicitly require such an offence to be created it is sensible for a grave misuse of the Red Crystal to be recognised as an offence in the same way as a grave misuse of any other protected emblem.The bill also makes a number of minor and technical amendments to existing legislation. The adoption of the third protocol has been an important step in enhancing protection for medical and humanitarian workers who will use the emblem in conflict situations especially where the existing emblems cannot be used. It is also an important step towards promoting the unity and universality of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement.Passing this bill will enable New Zealand to ratify the third protocol reaffirming our strong support for international humanitarian law and for the critical role of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement in providing humanitarian assistance to vulnerable people throughout the world. I commend this bill to the House.Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): Labour supports this bill the Geneva Conventions (Third Protocol—Red Crystal Emblem) Amendment Bill and its progress through its final stages in the House today. I imagine that every party in the House will be in support of this legislation which is not particularly contentious and takes a step that will be very much welcomed by the Red Cross both in New Zealand and internationally.The bill amends two separate pieces of legislation—the Geneva Conventions Act of 1958 and the Flags Emblems and Names Protection Act of 1981. It implements New Zealand’s obligations under the protocol addition to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and what it relates to is the adoption of an additional distinctive emblem which is called the third protocol. Although the third protocol is referred to in the bill as the Red Crystal most people would recognise it as a red diamond shape.Most members of the New Zealand community would be familiar with the Red Cross and the Red Crescent. The Red Cross and the Red Crescent are emblems that are used by nations for their medical workers including military medical workers and humanitarian workers at times of armed conflict. The emblems give them protection against attack when they are doing work and retrieving victims from the battlefield and so on. There is actually another emblem that the Minister of Civil Defence referred to—the Red Lion and Sun—which had its origins in Iran but that has largely fallen into disuse.The problem with the Red Crescent and the Red Cross is that they have come to have religious and therefore political connotations. That actually was not the intention in the first instance. The Red Cross which is a red cross on a white flag is actually the inverse of the flag of Switzerland which is a white cross on a red flag. It was chosen because Switzerland perhaps best epitomised the role of neutrality in international affairs and of course non-combatants in a battlefield situation who are rescuing injured soldiers or civilians or are retrieving the bodies of those who have been killed are in a neutral situation. They are not taking part in the battle that is going on and it is really important that they have protection in their roles.I guess it is somewhat ironic that we have rules regarding whom you can kill and injure and whom you cannot kill and injure in the course of a battle. It would be much better if we—Hon Maurice Williamson: It’s like caucus.Hon PHIL GOFF: It is like the Standing Orders Mr Williamson. It would be much better of course if we did not have wars and nobody was entitled to kill and maim people in the course of fighting. But that is not the reality of the world. As long as the reality of the world is that there are conflicts it is better to have rules surrounding those conflicts than not to have those particular rules.New Zealand is a party to the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the first and second additional protocols of 1977. These six instruments represent the coreframework of international humanitarian law: regulating the conduct of armed conflict as I have just mentioned.Going back to the problem with the Red Cross and the Red Crescent there were countries in the world that for particular reasons were not able to adopt either of those emblems. In particular that applied to Israel and it applied to Eritrea. Both countries expressed the need to have an emblem that would be able to win the respect and the observance of both sides in an armed conflict. There was a suggestion by Israel that it could be a red Star of David—[Interruption]—but that was not deemed to have the same impact on the opposing side on the battlefield as Mr Williamson acknowledges.So a joint working party was set up in around about 2000 to propose a third emblem. Things move reasonably slowly in international fields—and just as slowly in this House unfortunately with the passage of this legislation—and in December 2005 the emblem of the Red Crystal the red diamond was finally adopted and it was adopted by a two-thirds majority. It was seen as a practical solution and indeed it has been a practical solution. It has enabled the Israelis and the Palestinians the Israeli national society and the Palestinian Red Crescent Society to join the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies and to increase cooperation between them. That in the highly conflicted situation of the Middle East is an important factor.The additional protocol did not go through unanimously however. A large number of countries that were part of the Arab League and the Organization of the Islamic Conference voted against it. They voted against it not so much because they were opposed to having an additional protocol an additional emblem; they did it in protest at Israel’s perceived breach of the Geneva Conventions in the occupied Palestinian territories and the Golan Heights.I would have to say that that is a continuing problem. In the last week to see a decision by the Netanyahu Government to illegally settle another 3000 Israeli citizens on occupied land which it is not entitled to do is a provocation. I understand why those countries symbolically opposed the additional protocol on that basis. I feel equally strongly about that. That is a provocation. It is something that stands in the way of the long-awaited peace settlement between the two sides.But I do not believe that we should use that as a reason not to pass this bill today. In fact members of both the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the Arab League implicitly acknowledged the importance of having the third emblem welcoming the cooperation between the Israeli side and the Palestinian side in terms of their particular national societies. So although I understand the protest that has been made by those two groups of countries I do not believe that it is grounds for opposing the adoption of the emblem and I think the House should pass this legislation today.The second part of the bill actually extends and strengthens New Zealand’s obligation to prohibit the unauthorised use of Geneva Convention emblems. It does that of course in the first instance by extending the protection to the Red Crystal but it also does it by bringing the penalties into a more realistic framework. The penalty for misuse of the Red Cross or the Red Crescent was $1000. That is being increased tenfold to $10000 and probably that only brings it in line with inflation.The Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee back in 2007 conducted an international treaty examination of the protocol and it supported ratification. Three years later—and it was a long time later—a bill came into the House and another 2 years have passed before we are moving to pass this legislation. Again I would ask the National Government to look at how it manages the affairs of this House and to not hold up non-controversial legislation that all of the parties can support.This motion should have been moved earlier but the bill will go through its final stages today. We will then be able to ratify the protocol and we will be able toimplement our obligations under it. Sixty countries as the Minister of Civil Defence mentioned have already ratified it. It would be really good to see New Zealand as a country proud of its role in international affairs move more quickly in fields like that so that we can be at the leading edge of ratifying things that we all agree with rather than leaving things for the unconscionable length of time that has occurred with those two delays. There was a delay in introducing the bill and in getting the bill through the House. It has been just sitting on the Order Paper when every party in the House will probably support it. I support the passage of this bill.Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua): It is a pleasure to take a call on the Geneva Conventions (Third Protocol—Red Crystal Emblem) Amendment Bill. I am sure that all members of this House would agree that the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies should be regarded with the highest respect of just about any humanitarian organisation. It does from time to time demonstrate selfless contribution and extraordinary sacrifice with its operatives on many occasions putting themselves into extraordinary danger for the sake of others.The main aim of this bill is to amend the Geneva Conventions Act 1958 and the Flags Emblems and Names Protection Act 1981 in order to implement New Zealand’s obligations under the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 which New Zealand signed on 19 June 2006 with regard to the adoption of this additional distinctive emblem.Amending these Acts enables an additional protective emblem with equal status to the Red Cross and Red Crescent to be used in situations where neither of the existing emblems has the respect of both sides in an armed conflict. And I note in new schedule 7 inserted by the bill in the Geneva Conventions Act 1958 that the distinctive emblems from article 2—as you may see Mr Speaker—and article 3 indicate clearly the characteristics of this emblem. I think as Mr Goff described it most would recognise this as a diamond. It was actually described also as a lozenge. However the major point is that the Red Crystal emblem is intended to be free from any national religious cultural or political connotations and that is obvious from the history of the genesis of this symbol coming into being.This bill reaffirms New Zealand’s longstanding position as a supporter of international humanitarian law and the role of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. It is worthwhile just reiterating the background. The third protocol of course emanated from the original Geneva Conventions in 1949. This distinctive emblem was adopted by the States at the Geneva Conventions in 2005 and New Zealand signed the protocol in 2006. One does again wonder why the Minister of Foreign Affairs at the time the Hon Phil Goff did not expedite this into legislation during the course of the last Labour Government. One wonders whether he was a lazy Minister. Was he a lazy Minister? I leave the House to question this.Dr Cam Calder: Good question.Dr PAUL HUTCHISON: Yes. I do indeed feel somewhat cynical at the moralising that he has exhibited during the course of this morning. But it is good that this bill is now before the House as we see it and I think it is important to remember that the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and additional Protocols I and II of 1977 are the primary source of international humanitarian law and the law of armed conflict.The Red Cross and Red Crescent emblems are now used in over 190 countries to protect authorised medical personnel buildings equipment and chaplains during times of armed conflict. However some countries—and I think again that Mr Goff identified Israel and Eritrea as being two—find it difficult to use these symbols because of the religious connotations. Israel itself was keen to use through itsMagen DavidAdom NGO the Red Shield of David. Clearly this was unacceptable to others andconsequently the Red Crystal was settled through the conventions. This was not entirely easy. There were difficulties in getting it through and certainly the Arab League countries did not agree. However the overall feeling was that it was important.I think it is relevant to say that the additional emblem is needed for two main reasons. One can think of the conflict in Libya and again in Syria right now where it is used for military medical personnel and authorised humanitarian workers during those sorts of conflicts that are going on as we speak. It is also used to enable national societies that are unable to adopt either of the emblems currently in use.As I said there is no doubt that it was not entirely easy getting this passed through. It would have been great to have it unanimously passed but that was not the case. The Arab League States wanted to see some of the issues regarding the Golan Heights and the Palestine territories settled before they would agree to it and one must hope that with time this will happen. I must say that I do agree with Mr Goff when I hear of the settlements occurring in East Jerusalem which seem to me to be particularly provocative under the circumstances. The Red Crystal emblem and its introduction into this convention are a very positive move and I support the bill in the House.Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour): It gives me great pleasure to rise again to speak in this debate on the Geneva Conventions (Third Protocol—Red Crystal Emblem) Amendment Bill. It is something that Labour supports obviously. In fact there is not a party in the House I think that would not support this bill. Just before I proceed with a couple of comments that I want to make about the significance of the bill I do want to go to process. For the member who has just resumed his seat Paul Hutchison to ask a question about whether or not the Hon Phil Goff should have progressed this legislation in 2007 or late 2005 ignores the fact that the Hon Phil Goff was not the Minister of Foreign Affairs between 2005 and 2008. So I just recommend that the member if he is wishing to cast aspersions gets his history right.Having dropped that little gem in there for the Government to gnaw at I would like to proceed to talk about the significance of these emblems which is something that we do all agree on irrespective of the time delay there has been from the introduction of this bill under the Labour Government to the passage of it today. The Red Cross Red Crescent and Red Crystal emblems have for a long time provided protection for military medical services and relief workers in armed conflicts. The emblems are used for identification purposes. The use of the emblems is actually clearly defined in law. The use and misuse of the Red Cross Red Crescent and Red Crystal emblems is clearly defined. The Geneva Conventions and the additional protocols contain several articles on the emblems and among other things they specify the use size purpose and placing of the emblems and the persons and property they protect who can use them what respect for the emblems entails and the penalties for misuse. In addition to that they require that each State party to the Geneva Conventions and their additional protocols enact legislation defining the use and preventing the misuse of these emblems on a national level and that is what we are engaged in doing today.There are two main uses of these emblems. One is protective and the other is indicative. First obviously the emblems are a visible sign in armed conflict of the protection given to medical services medical equipment and buildings of the armed forces under international law and that protection extends to certain humanitarian organisations working alongside the military to relieve the suffering of the wounded prisoners and civilians caught up in the conflict. This first use is the one that is usually referred to as protective use. Secondly national Red Cross and Red Crescent societies around the world are allowed to use the emblems to identify themselves as part of a global network known as the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and this use is called the indicative use. The rules for both of these uses are very precise. Asmy colleague the Hon Phil Goff mentioned a moment ago in armed conflict the protective emblem must be in red on a white background with no additions. Of course the first of these emblems came into being in 1864 as the Red Cross: a red cross on a white background the reversing-out of the flag of Switzerland known for its neutrality. So the resulting symbol had the advantage of being easily produced and it was recognisable at a distance because of its contrasting colours.In the years that followed a number of national relief organisations started to be called Red Cross societies and the indicative use of the emblem became established. The original intent of the 1864 conference the diplomatic conference that resulted in this emblem being adopted was to create a universal neutral and distinctive sign of protection used and recognised by everyone. Just over a decade later in the 1870s during the Russo-Turkish War the Ottoman Empire adopted the Red Crescent as its protective sign while still recognising and respecting the Red Cross. Persia too at that time adopted its own sign and in 1929 Governments formally recognised all three. The third sign—and again the Hon Phil Goff referred to this—was the old Persian sign the Red Lion and Sun and that lasted until 1980 when Iran dropped that symbol. So since the 1990s there had been concern about respect for the neutrality of the Red Cross or the Red Crescent in certain difficult conflicts and in 1992 the then president of the International Committee of the Red Cross called publicly for the creation of an additional emblem devoid of any national political or religious connotation. In 2005 Governments adopted this additional protective sign the Red Crystal.Just today I received the latest newsletter from the New Zealand Red Cross and I would just like to draw on that for a moment to demonstrate how critical it is that in modern times—never mind the history of these emblems but in modern times—there are acceptable emblems that connote a protection and a neutrality in times of conflict. TheInternational Humanitarian Law Newsletter which I just received from the New Zealand Red Cross today talks about places of current conflict: it refers to Syria it refers to the Ivory Coast and war crimes committed there it talks about the relentless conflict in Afghanistan and it talks about past conflicts in Libya. These are contemporary examples of war-torn countries in which these emblems take on an immediate significance. It is imperative that those who are medics who go in as non-combatants into war-torn areas receive international recognition and protection. If the introduction of the Red Crystal allows any past connotations with either Christianity or Islam to be removed from the recognition of emblems then this is a good thing. It is the neutrality and the independence of the emblems that is very important.The last time I spoke on this I made a comment about emblems and how we do run our lives by emblems. Human beings respond to emblems. We know what it means when a flag is flown at half mast. That is an emblem that is recognised the world over as a sign of mourning of somebody in high office or a very celebrated person having died. We respond to emblems. It has been the case that there have been conflicts in recent times from which the humanitarian aid of the Red Cross has been prohibited so the Red Cross has been forbidden to go into areas at times. In Burma when great humanitarian need arose out of CycloneNargis a few years ago the junta at that time refused to admit international humanitarian aid. So there are times when humanitarian need has not been recognised and adopted by Governments and this protocol signed by the number of countries that have signed it gives me some hope that there can be some neutrality and there can be a recognition internationally that when people wear these emblems they are protected and their function is recognised. So the Labour Party supports this bill unreservedly and commends it to the House. Thank you.JAN LOGIE (Green):Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. I am pleased to take a brief call this morning in support of the Geneva Conventions (Third Protocol—Red Crystal Emblem)Amendment Bill. Again obviously the Green Party is joining I think every other party in the House today in support of this bill.A lot of the history has already been covered by my colleagues and this speech and this topic almost feel as if they are about us just actually catching up and signing off the paperwork to pass something that has already happened. So there does not feel to me to be a huge amount of need to go into a lot of detail. I would briefly go over—or go over again—what other people have said in terms of the history and the importance of this bill though because it is a catching-up with what happened in 2005 when the Red Cross and the Red Crescent were joined by another symbol in recognition that Israel and Eritrea were not able to use the symbols available to them to cover and protect humanitarian interventions in their countries.In fact Israel has been quite a complicated situation really. Because it was not able to join the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement because of its refusal to use the symbols available America was refusing to pay its fees into the international organisation and this had a real impact in terms of the ability of the association to fund its work. So making this change and having each national country sign off on it has actually had a financially positive impact for the association globally which I am pleased to be able to support.I would like to note though that even after the passing of this protocol in terms of theMagen DavidAdom—which is in effect the organisation that has come into the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement—there has been ongoing debate about its use and non-use of this symbol which has been very disappointing. In 2011 the international conference on the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement noted with regret that the 2005 agreement had not been fully implemented. It decided to continue a monitoring process in terms ofMagen DavidAdom’s use or non-use of the symbol and agreements at that time of involvement in Gaza and the West Bank. Unfortunately in January 2012—that is this year—the organisation confirmed thatMagen DavidAdom had in fact agreed to stop all services within the West Bank. Rescue efforts would be officially administered by regional councils instead and would not be using theMagen David symbol asMagen DavidAdom had continued to do.In effect although we have made this international agreement to enable Israel to come into the family to hold this neutrality that is so critically important unfortunately it has not been following through on that. So my hope is that as more countries in the world put these protocols and acknowledgment of the Red Crystal into our national laws there will be more of a sense of consensus around the importance of neutrality in these symbols. I think that the Hon Phil Goff’s contribution of recognising as Maryan Street also did the history of the Red Cross—that it is not a religious symbol; in fact it came from the inverse of the Swiss flag the symbol of neutrality—is important but that has clearly been lost. The cross is clearly seen globally as a symbol that reinforces a message of Christianity and therefore alongside the Red Crescent which is seen as a symbol representing Islam has in effect made the movement for peace and neutrality politicised and has put it into a religious construct which is really unfortunate. So it would be wonderful to see more use of the Red Crystal and I hope that by our passing this law today we will in some way contribute to the strengthening of neutrality.I would also just like to note—I would be remiss in my job as spokesperson on women if I did not mention it—that this bill also updates the language in the original Act from gender-specific language to gender-neutral language. It is important to mark that and note our progress as a country towards more full inclusion and that for me is also a positive move in terms of a sense of a world where everyone is included and we are not being ruled by old paradigms of power. So again the Greens are very happy to be supporting this bill.SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country): Like other speakers I am very pleased to rise in support of the Geneva Conventions (Third Protocol—Red Crystal Emblem) Amendment Bill at its second reading.Can I also make mention as the son of a returned serviceman of the neutrality that has been much spoken of. There have been some very eloquent narratives today. The Hon Maryan Street had a very precise I would suggest history of the Red Cross and the Red Crescent and articulated it very well. I thank her for that contribution. In response to that I say that the neutrality of those emblems and the ability of people to be able to go into areas of conflict in a neutral way for humanitarian work are essential in a civilised society I would suggest. To have a situation where potentially the longstanding neutrality of the Red Cross or the Red Crescent is being challenged in certain conflicts in the world on the basis that it may have been contaminated in some way by religious or political interference would be a huge travesty for New Zealand and for the world. So anything that we can do as I guess a small island nation as far away as we are from the centre of most of these international conflicts at the moment is something that we should do.With those comments and the comments of the Minister of Civil Defence in the address at the beginning of this debate it is a great pleasure to have been part of this process. Thank you.ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First): I take a call on behalf of New Zealand First on the Geneva Conventions (Third Protocol—Red Crystal Emblem) Amendment Bill. New Zealand First alongside all other parties will support this bill. We are somewhat concerned that it is taking so long to get through the process of this House and that this was originally signed up to in 2005—Dr Paul Hutchison: Who was the Minister at the time?ANDREW WILLIAMS: I am not sure. I was not here in the House in 2005.Dr Paul Hutchison: The Hon Winston Peters.ANDREW WILLIAMS: I do not know; I cannot confirm that. What I can say is that as I mentioned in the House last night the Government has 64 Government bills on the Order Paper many of which have been sitting around for years and years and years gathering dust sitting on shelves in various places and going nowhere quickly. This is another case of a bill that should not have taken all these years to get to this point. This has the full support of every member of this House and is a no-brainer. Of course we would be supporting the Red Cross the Red Crescent and the Red Crystal movement internationally in its endeavours to bring humanitarian aid support and care to people in the most difficult situations in some of the worst trouble spots of the world. In that respect can we just say let us not in this House see this sort of thing occur again where something can be signed in 2005 but the legislation takes until 2012 to finally be passed.In terms of the Red Cross the Red Crescent and the Red Crystal movement it operates in 188 countries around the world and has over 97 million volunteers members and staff worldwide. It is a tremendous movement a tremendous organisation including such large numbers of volunteers as well as those staff working for them. Every night on the news virtually without exception where there are major areas of conflict around the world we are regularly reminded of the good work that the Red Cross does in many of these conflict situations. It is there to protect human life and health to ensure respect for all human beings and to prevent and alleviate human suffering without any discrimination based on nationality race sex religious beliefs class or political opinion. We are very happy to support this. We are somewhat concerned about the delays but we are very happy to support this.The Red Cross also has an illustrious history in terms of receiving the Nobel Peace Prize. It was awarded it back in 1917 during the First World War for its incredible humane efforts in the First World War. Again during the Second World War in 1944 it was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize and again in 1963 it received the Nobel Peace Prize. I would go so far as to say that having received it three times the Red Cross in this current millennium in this current century certainly would be worthy of receiving it again for all the work it does.We commend this. We believe this is just a practical solution to those areas where obviously a Christian cross or a Muslim crescent are not appropriate where this provides a middle ground to ensure that those people who work under the symbol have a level of protection and people who are out there know that they can turn to this symbol turn to the Red Cross turn to the Red Crescent and know that they will receive assistance. New Zealand First supports this.Dr JACKIE BLUE (National): I am very pleased to speak in the second reading of the Geneva Conventions (Third Protocol—Red Crystal Emblem) Amendment Bill. It amends the Geneva Conventions Act 1958. It proposes a new emblem the Red Crystal or red diamond shape which provides an alternative option to other emblems such as the Red Cross and the Red Crescent. These emblems will all give protection to personnel or organisations that use or wear them.The Red Cross and Red Crescent are emblems that are now used in over 190 countries but the fact is that there are some countries that find it difficult to use the Red Cross or the Red Crescent because they are considered to have religious connotations. So this third option the Red Crystal emblem will hopefully be satisfactory to those countries. It means that authorised personnel buildings and equipment during times of armed conflict will have the protection that they should have. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North):Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. Thank you very much for inviting me to speak on this fine piece of legislation the Geneva Conventions (Third Protocol—Red Crystal Emblem) Amendment Bill which has drawn unanimous support from around the House.The purpose of this legislation has been well canvassed by the members who have spoken before me. Ultimately what this comes down to is allowing the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement to be able to do its job wherever it goes around the world. It is I suppose in itself a symbol of exactly how powerful symbols and language are no matter what culture we talk about around the world. The fact that the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement has not been welcome in some parts of the world because of the symbols that are used and the connotations that go with them really to me underlines just how important language andsymbology still are even in this day and age.Of course what we know is that the original Red Cross was developed as the inverse of the flag of Switzerland a nation known for—a symbol if you will of—peace and neutrality. That was the original meaning behind the Red Cross. But it is only natural I would think in non-Christian countries to recognise the cross as a Christian symbol. The first addition to the Red Cross that was made was the Red Crescent during the Russo-Turkish Wars between 1876 and 1878. That was picked up by the Ottoman Empire and the Red Crescent then spread amongst the Muslim world. But of course the world is not simply a dichotomy of Christianity and Islam. There are many other religions and many other movements out there and so what we are trying to achieve here is to provide a symbol that can cross cultural borders as well as geographic borders.It is not the first attempt to come up with a third protocol. Other members have mentioned the Red Shield—or the Red Star—of David which of course really only works in one country and works for one country and has exactly the same connotations as the Red Cross and the Red Crescent have for many other nations and religions. There have been a number of different proposals over the years. The red flame was proposed by Siamese delegates back in 1899. In Persia we have talked about the red lion and sun symbol. A red sun symbol was once proposed. A red lamb symbol which perhaps we would be quite comfortable with here in New Zealand was proposed by the Republic of Congo. India proposed a red wheel Lebanon proposed a red cedar Sudan proposed a red rhinoceros and Syria proposed a red palm. This is not the total number of different proposals there has been over the years but it is a small segment of them. It just shows that this has been an issue for a long time—trying to find additional symbols that overcome the problem faced by the Red Cross and the Red Crescent.Interestingly and I think this talks about how symbols and language can change over time in 1922 a Red Swastika Society was proposed. That was proposed in China during the warlord era. Of course after the 1930s the swastika’s meaning changed dramatically and probably would no longer be acceptable today. So you know things can change a lot over time and we have to be cognisant of that. I think in that way the Red Crystal or diamond shape is one that hopefully will stand the test of time.But language is important and symbols are important. They have real meaning. When you get the language wrong or you get thesymbology wrong that can be quite offensive. Recently we have had another red symbol and that is the red shirt the gay red shirt that Mr Key introduced into modern language here in New Zealand. I see members opposite grimacing at this. They ought to. They should be embarrassed about the new symbol of the gay red shirt. But this is hugely important.Nikki Kaye: What about JohnTamihere’s comments?IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Sorry Nikki Kaye could you repeat that?Nikki Kaye: What about JohnTamihere’s comments?IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: JohnTamihere’s comments? I find them deeply offensive as well. I do find those comments offensive. I want to talk about thesymbology around a red shirt. When you use a symbol like that and then you go on to say that what the Prime Minister meant by using the word “gay” was “weird”—he thinks that the term “gay” means “weird”—that is powerful. It has meaning in exactly the same way that a cross or a crescent can be interpreted differently by people who might see a different meaning in what was originally suggested in the same way people were offended deeply offended by the Prime Minister’s statement that wearing a red shirt meant that a person was gay and that being gay meant that they were weird. I think we have to call that out because it is not just about—[Interruption]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! Can I just remind members that it is quite in order to interject on the person who is speaking—that is normal practice—but it is not acceptable that members interject on each other especially when they do not have the floor. If you want to take part in the debate you are welcome to do so.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Language and symbols are powerful. Our Prime Minister is our premier spokesperson around the world. He needs to be cognisant of the fact that when he uses language and symbols in the way that he did that undermines his ability to represent New Zealand as a peace-loving nation that does not believe in discrimination and that does not single people out for discrimination. That is what this symbol is all about and we should be supporting this because we are known around the world as a nation that has been at the forefront of peacekeeping maintaining peace and trying to eliminate discrimination. New Zealand has a proud history in the UN and inother fora for being a nation that leads the charge against discrimination and it undermines that reputation and that history when our Prime Minister uses that type of language. I think that needs to be identified.But as I say this legislation is a bill that is being supported right around the House. Shane Ardern said that we have to do our small part as a small nation to reinforce the message behind this: that we want the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement to be able to operate across borders and across cultures. I think that actually it is much more than that. The world looks to nations like New Zealand that have such a good record on these matters to show leadership and perhaps it would have been better if we had been able to pass this legislation a little bit earlier so that we could have been amongst the world’s leaders on this issue but it is good that we are finally catching up and passing this legislation. Labour wholeheartedly supports this bill.Dr CAM CALDER (National): After that contribution on linguistics and a certain amount of gay banter I want to bring the debate back to a very serious issue and that is that around the world in southern Sudan Syria Afghanistan Côte d’Ivoire—and there has been a bitter nasty and bloody dispute in southern Thailand near the border with Malaysia for some years—men women and children are suffering. Men women and children are dying or being grievously wounded. This is not just background noise on the global television screens; this is people suffering. The Geneva Conventions (Third Protocol—Red Crystal Emblem) Amendment Bill sets out to address issues in the many conflicts around the world where the combatants those involved or civilians may not readily recognise the long-established symbols of the Red Cross and the Red Crescent.The bill obviously reaffirms New Zealand’s longstanding position as a supporter of international humanitarian law and of course reaffirms the role of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement in providing humanitarian assistance to vulnerable people throughout the world but in addition as we have heard eloquently described by previous speakers provides an additional protective symbol with equal status to those well-known Red Cross and Red Crescent symbols which can be used in situations where neither of those has the respect of sides in the armed conflict.The bill contains the legislative provisions needed for New Zealand to become a party to the third additional protocol to the conventions of 1949. As we have said the Red Crystal is intended to be free from any national religious cultural or political connotations. The aforementioned cross and crescent symbols provide safe havens in time of conflict and are recognised by 190 countries around the world as protecting medical personnel material equipment and buildings. Of course they also serve to identify the international bodies. So this Red Crystal will strengthen the protection of victims in conflicts where neither of those existing emblems has the respect of both sides in an armed conflict. It is a very necessary bill. It is a very important bill and I commend it to the House.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I just advise members that the next call is a split call so the members participating will be given the bell with 1 minute remaining.PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—TeAtatū): I am very happy to take a short call in this debate on the Geneva Conventions (Third Protocol—Red Crystal Emblem) Amendment Bill. We support this bill. It is important that both the Red Cross and the Red Crescent organisations can operate effectively and with the protection of humanitarian neutrality in conflict zones.I want to talk just very briefly about this issue of humanitarian neutrality because that is the backdrop for this debate and the move to add a third protocol to the Geneva Conventions and allow the use of this third symbol the Red Crystal emblem. The risk to humanitarian neutrality is something that has become a part of an urgent debate over thelast 20 years or so and I think it really links to the proliferation of civil conflicts that we have seen around the world after the end of the Cold War in places like Somalia Kosovo the Congo Sudan Azerbaijan and most recently Syria to name just a few. We have seen more and more conflicts that are intra-State often between non-State parties and alongside that an increasingmilitarisation of aid as both State military forces and also non-State military forces have tried to use aid as a tool and as a kind of bargaining chip of war. The effect of that has been really to corrode the perception of the neutrality of humanitarian workers and that really goes to the heart of one of the key principles of the Geneva Conventions and much of the development of international humanitarian law over five or six decades. So it is essential that we the New Zealand Government and the international community protect and support the work of the Red Cross and Red Crescent organisations.What this bill seeks to do is allow New Zealand to ratify the third protocol which establishes this third protective emblem which will be worn on the backs and on the uniforms of medical personnel aid workers and humanitarian workers in conflict zones all around the world. One of the interesting things is that the reason that this third emblem is needed is that there are a couple of countries in particular that find both the Red Cross and the Red Crescent difficult. Israel is one of those countries as other speakers have noted. The particular religious and political make-up in Israel and Palestine means that both the Red Cross and the Red Crescent are problematic. Eritrea is the other example the other country. It is in the Horn of Africa in one of the most volatile parts of Africa. Eritrea is a country that has come out of a long period of civil war against the Ethiopian State and is a country that is basically split between Orthodox Christian and Muslim populations and it has a Government that is intensely conscious of how vulnerable it is to political instability and religious and ethnic conflict. The Eritrean Government is unwilling to allow either the Red Cross or the Red Crescent to be used in that country. So this symbol is a way around that problem and there may well be other examples of countries that would benefit from or would prefer to use this third protective emblem the Red Crystal.I note just in passing that this bill has taken a long time to get to this second reading stage. It has been treated as something of an orphan by this National-led Government and it has been nearly 4 years as a number of colleagues have already noted that it has been languishing on the Order Paper. That is a shame. It is a shame and it reflects I think a low priority that the Government has given this bill.It is unfortunate that the area of foreign affairs is one of the portfolios where I think New Zealanders feel most disappointed and let down by the lack of leadership by this Government. The languishing of this bill for so long is really only a very small example. Overall the leadership in the areas of foreign affairs has been extremely disappointing. You know the most notable thing that this foreign affairs Minister has achieved is the kind of botched handling of the restructuring of his department and his ministry. In the area of humanitarian policy and disarmament policy we have gone backwards to be honest. We saw the disestablishment of the post of Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control and the abdication of any kind of leadership by New Zealand in the whole area of disarmament which is an area where this country has a proud tradition of activism and leadership in the international community. It is sad that this Government has moved back from that position.One of the most graphic illustrations of that lack of commitment and lack of leadership was the attitude shown by National Party MPs when we debated my member’s bill a few months back the Depleted Uranium (Prohibition) Bill. It was treated with scorn and contempt and voted down by members on the National benches in spite of the fact that only a few days ago at the United Nations a huge majority ofcountries voted in the General Assembly to support a resolution affirming the need for a precautionary approach in relation to uranium weapons.I just wanted to say that this is a bill that Labour supports. We are glad to see it finally put to bed. Its passage will now allow the Government to ratify the third protocol to the Geneva Conventions and New Zealand will join a long list of countries that have officially incorporated this protocol. It will allow the Red Crystal to take its place alongside the Red Cross and the Red Crescent.Bill read a second time.Third ReadingHon ANNE TOLLEY (Deputy Leader of the House)on behalf of theMinister of Foreign Affairs: I moveThat the Geneva Conventions (Third Protocol—Red Crystal Emblem) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.Bill read a third time.Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) BillSecond ReadingHon ANNE TOLLEY (Deputy Leader of the House)on behalf of theLeader of the House: I moveThat the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill be now read a second time. The Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill confirms and validates 16 orders or regulations made under seven different Acts. The bill must be enacted by 31 December 2012 to avoid subordinate legislation lapsing. The bill was introduced on 30 August 2012 and referred to the Regulations Review Committee on 11 September. The committee asked the five relevant Government agencies responsible for administering the legislation to explain why confirmation or validations of the orders is warranted. The committee was satisfied with the responses it received and presented its report on 26 October recommending that the bill be passed without amendment.The committee has noted that the current process for considering subordinate legislation bills allows for only limited scrutiny and has recommended that these bills be introduced earlier in the year than has been usual in recent years. The Government will work to improve the process for considering this type of bill when progressing the next subordinate legislation bill. I thank the select committee for its thoughtful consideration of this bill.Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai): I rise to support the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill but I suspect that there are a number of people out there listening today who are wondering what on earth a Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill is.Grant Robertson: Thousands of them.Hon ANNETTE KING: Thousands of people are probably wondering what it is. It is a very grand title indeed. So I thought perhaps I would give just a little explanation so that they could follow what this debate is. Subordinate legislation bills are introduced every year to confirm and/or to validate what is called subordinate legislation. What is subordinate legislation? Well in fact it is regulations and orders that are made by this Parliament. The purpose of this bill is to confirm that subordinate legislation—in this case regulations and orders—is able to continue so that it does not lapse. If it has sunset clauses we confirm that it can continue to carry on and continue in force. This is something that we do each year and we bring in a bill. Parliament is the one thatdecides on this because this is an area where Parliament has already decided that it does not just allow Cabinet to make decisions in terms of the executive making regulations.This particular bill is covering seven Acts confirming regulations in them. What are they? The Animal Products Act 1999 the Commodities Levies Act 1990 the Customs and Excise Act 1996 our New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001 and Social Security Act 1964 the Road User Charges Act 2012 and the War Pensions Act 1954. This bill actually covers those six main areas.You might wonder what sorts of issues are covered in those particular Acts. Well if you take the Commodities Levies Act 1990 it makes orders about commodity levies on things like navel oranges kiwifruitnashi pears arable crops cereal silage maize asparagus and so on.Then if you look at what happens under the orders being made under the Customs and Excise Act you will see that orders are being made on tobacco products and the indexation of tobacco products. The indexation of excise duty is brought about by confirmation of these orders. This is an area that I have particular interest in because we know that if we do have an increased price for tobacco we also have a corresponding reduction in the consumption of tobacco. Of course there are those out there who think that the earth is still flat and that tobacco has absolutely nothing to do with cancer. There are others who have proven over many years that tobacco cigarettes—no matter how many you smoke—are going to be bad for you. The first one is bad for you and so are the 60 you smoke every day. And so we do know that increasing the excise on tobacco is likely to lead to people stopping smoking.It has been asked of me over the years why we would want to penalise the poor by putting up the price of tobacco. My answer is: why would we let tobacco companies kill poor people? That is what this product does. It is one of the only products that if you take it is likely to lead to your death. So I totally support raising the excise duty on tobacco and I would imagine that there are very few people who would be opposed to that. It also deals with the excise duty on alcoholic beverages but amongst that we also have motor spirits and toothfish so it is quite a broad-ranging order indeed.The other one I wanted to talk about is the road-user charges of 2012. This increases road-user charges through an order. This really came out of an experience I had as Minister of Transport. I see Mr Colin King smiling over there; he probably remembers the event very well. You see when I was Minister of Transport I decided that I would increase road-user charges because there had been one increase in road-user charges on vehicles over 3.5 tonnes since 1989. As you know road-user charges are the way we ensure that those who drive heavy vehicles help to pay for their share of the roads. I am sure the member for Invercargill will be very aware of the damage that big vehicles do to roads and particularly local roads down in an area where you have a lot of farming and you have big vehicles on the road and the damage they do in cutting out those roads—Phil Twyford: Especially in Southland.Hon ANNETTE KING: —particularly in Southland. In fact there is a major problem in Southland because the funding that goes into the maintenance of local roads in our rural areas has been cut by this Government. You will see the results of that in the years to come because if you do not maintain your roads and you do not have enough money coming in through your road-user charges and other avenues you will pay for it in the future when it costs you much more to go back to square one to repair your infrastructure. So road-user charges are the way that we get heavy vehicles to contribute to their cost. In fact it is my view that they do not completely pay for the damage that they actually do on the roads.When I was Minister I decided to increase the road-user charges and it was actually quite a modest increase in road-user charges—for example a typical 5-tonne truck would pay an additional $53 every 10000 kilometres while a 23-tonne four-axle truck was expected to pay around an additional $198 for 10000 kilometres. It made up about 10 percent of a truck’s total operating costs. So you can see that the impact it would have had on freight was quite small. What happened because I increased it—one increase since 1989? We had the truckies go on strike. They blocked the roads around New Zealand in big convoys of trucks. They did not like to have an increase in road-user charges.So I then said OK we would undertake a review in the way we set road-user charges in terms of the notification and what notice is given that the road-user charges will go up. One of the reasons that there was not notification on the particular occasion when I was Minister was that the year before I had increased it very marginally and had given notice. Within 3 days there was something like $21 million of forward buying of road-user charges certificates to try to avoid the increase. It is sort of like going out and filling up your car with petrol if you think the excise duty is going to be put up on Budget night and hoping that you have got a windfall because you have avoided having to pay the extra cost. Of course there was a famous occasion in this Parliament when one of the Opposition members of the National Party when we were in Government in the 1980s decided—Grant Robertson: Who was it?Hon ANNETTE KING: —I will not name him—that petrol excise was bound to go up that night in the Budget. He rushed out and he filled up his car rubbing his hands with glee only to find the excise duty was put down and in fact he made a loss.But what came out of my experience in road-user charges is giving notice of setting. This is what came out of that review and under this order it is set at a particular time and there is enough notice for people to know that it is going to be set but also mechanisms are in place so there cannot be a whole lot of forward buying to avoid having to pay what is a legitimate cost of vehicles on the road.This is a standard bill that we have before the House. It validates orders and regulations that are made by this Parliament and Labour supports the bill.NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central): I am very pleased to add my contribution to the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill. I hope that all members of the House support the passage of this bill. It is a small but important bill that validates and confirms orders and regulations under a wide range of legislation.The bill is considered every year in order to prevent any of the items of delegated legislation from lapsing. The orders and regulations of this bill are generally technical although we have heard a very eloquent speech from the Hon Annette King and have heard about the variety of things that are in this particular piece of legislation. We have got seven commodity levies to five orders under the Customs and Excise Act. We also as has been mentioned by Annette King as well have a set of regulations made under the Road User Charges Act confirmed.This bill should not take up the House’s time unduly but it is important that we give the same level of careful attention to this as we do to every bill. I am pleased to support this bill to the House.GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour): It is a pleasure and somewhat of a surprise to take a call on the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill. But as all of the speakers who have spoken so far have indicated this is a significant bill in the sense that although it has a name that sounds innocuous if not deadly dull it does actually cover some matters of significance to New Zealanders. As my colleague Annette King has noted a bill like this effectively just allows the processof laws and regulations to carry on without having to go through specific legislation for each of them but where there are levies or consequential actions of legislation this bill allows those to be continued validated and confirmed as is noted here. But the subject matter of those is indeed significant and my colleague Annette King has mentioned a couple of those.It is quite notable around the question of tobacco and alcohol that using this mechanism is a much more sensible way of being able to manage the ongoing nature of those levies rather than as she noted the late-night Budget night activities of people desperately finding their way to sources of petrol and cigarettes for fear of what might happen. I did think the story that Annette King told about the National Party backbencher of the 1980s—Chris Hipkins: It was a Wellington member actually.GRANT ROBERTSON: A Wellington member? We are getting a little more information now about just who this person might be. But that particular member who did that perhaps epitomises that the National Party still has not quite worked out how to do its sums has not caught up with what goes on when it comes to the change in the system. Thinking that it was planning ahead but getting it wrong—that is the National Party through and through.Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: Sounds like David Cunliffe.GRANT ROBERTSON: Jonathan Coleman is interjecting about people being able to do their numbers. I do not think “The Maestro” from Mount Albert should be talking about getting his numbers right. Jonathan Coleman is one person who when it comes to adding up numbers should just keep quiet in my view.In addition to the Customs and Excise Act changes that Annette King has mentioned I just wanted to speak briefly on what is clause 10 of the bill which proposes some changes around the New Zealand superannuation and retirement income rates. This is an area where we have finally seen some action from the National Party albeit action that is virtually automated on this matter but certainly ongoing attention to the question of the sustainability of our superannuation has been severely lacking. John Key has continually said that it is not his responsibility to try to deal with these matters because nothing will occur in terms of the lack of sustainability of the scheme for 10 15 or 20 years. Although an automated increase as is contained in this bill might be useful what would be really useful from this Government is if it took seriously the challenge of the sustainability of superannuation in New Zealand if it actually decided that it was worth thinking about something beyond a 3-year electoral cycle and if it looked at what we need to do as a country to ensure that New Zealanders are looked after in their retirement. So simply rolling over provisions extending out the rates and benefits within an Act might be one thing. What we would like to see is this Government taking seriously the challenge of providing superannuation into the future for the range of New Zealanders.We all know in this House that the cost of superannuation will soon exceed the education budget and we actually need to be taking seriously how we as a country looking forward to the next generations and the retirement of the baby boomers will have sustainable superannuation. Putting the head in the sand as the National Government is doing—the “ostrich economics” approach—is simply not good enough. We need a Government that is prepared to plan for the future to plan for 20 years out because that is the responsibility we as parliamentarians are charged with—not just dealing with what is in front of us today but ensuring that tomorrow and in the future we have a sustainable superannuation scheme that can allow New Zealanders to live with dignity in retirement. At the moment the Government has its head stuck in the sand. Theonly thing it is prepared to do is what is virtually automatic which is to increase these rates.There are many other matters in this bill that I am sure my colleagues will refer to in their speeches. We of course support this bill because it is about the efficient running of Government but the Government needs to ensure that the substantive matters covered in this bill are dealt with in a proper way and with the kind of vigour that New Zealanders would expect from a Government that actually has an eye to the future.JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green):Tēnā koe Mr Deputy Speaker. I rise to take a very short call on the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill which the Green Party will be supporting. As with these sorts of bills from other years as many speakers have mentioned already today it just consists of very technical regulations and orders that are extremely uncontroversial.The Regulations Review Committee’s correspondence showed that all relevant departments considered it necessary to have the regulations in question confirmed or validated. If confirming these regulations will assist with the proper functioning of departments then it is definitely most worthwhile to support the bill. So it was no great surprise to see that the Regulations Review Committee recommended it be passed without amendment and we join the committee in thanking the relevant departments for their assistance.What was more interesting was the recommendation by the committee that the Government examine the viability of introducing bills seeking confirmation and/or validation of subordinate legislation earlier in the calendar year than has been usual in recent years. I think this seems like a very sensible recommendation. If we are going to go through this process every year it is worth allowing the committees more time to undertake serious scrutiny of the technical issues surrounding the legislation.It seems to be that more can be substantively accomplished through consideration at the select committee—at least in the first instance—than in a first reading debate. Of course as others have noted the annual nature of this process is not necessarily desirable. It is good to see a streamlined debate recommended in the case of these confirmation and validation bills. But that does not necessarily mean that we are still operating as efficiently as we might otherwise do. Charles Chauvel in his speech at the first reading made the very good point that this process undertaken annually is probably not a very efficient use of the House’s time. As he said it would behove us to try to enact primary legislation that does not require taking time out of the business of the House each year to have bits of it confirmed. If there are major issues with a piece of legislation we can always deal with that in a more robust way than this yearly exercise makes room for. It seems more efficient to delegate more time for the Regulations Review Committee to scrutinise these sorts of provisions in the course of its business rather than this slightly onerous procedure that we have now.I note that other speakers have referred to the changes to the road-user charges. Part of this bill is specifying the rates of road-user charges for distance licences for road-user charge vehicles. Interestingly the Government’s financial statements are out today and they show that there was a significantly lower tax take from indirect taxes. That was primarily because of the road-user charges which were $73 million lower than forecast. So what this suggests is that actually the Government’s most recent change to the road-user charges regime has not delivered the revenue that was expected. That is in part probably because road use is down. It has been down for 5 or 6 years. It has not been growing so there is less revenue coming in from road-user charges and from petrol taxes.It seems in this particular case that the changes that were made to the road-user charges scheme maybe were very optimistic in terms of the revenue that they wouldraise. This is going to pose a significant issue for this Government which of course has very very ambitious highway-building plans that it intends to fund from road-user charges and petrol taxes which of course probably are not going to deliver enough revenue. So now the Government is looking to creative borrowing techniques like public-private partnerships and getting us into some really long-term expensive loans to pay for its motorways.I would expect that next year we may well be seeing an update to the Road User Charges Act hopefully increasing the rates of road-user charges because after all of this work that we have just done it seems that the Government has not got it right and is not going to be getting enough revenue in. It probably should be revisiting its spending priorities because the spending priorities just do not match up with the demand that is out there in the market. Obviously if you are making investments for the next decade or two one would want those investments to be supportive of the sorts of economic development that we are actually going to see in that time.Aside from that I do not have much to add. This bill raises no major issues of policy for us. We will be happy to see it pass although I do expect that we are going to have to see an update to the road-user charges rates in a very short time.I would like to thank the committee for its careful consideration of the process and extend particular thanks to Mr Chauvel who I think has raised very good points about the process and about the opportunities to improve the process and make it a little more streamlined and efficient. Thank you.COLIN KING (National—Kaikōura): It is a pleasure to take a call during the second reading of the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill. It is appropriate that we actually do have this tool by which Parliament can approve this legislation.For a brief moment I will look at commodity levies. They are a process whereby levy payers contribute to the performance of various functions of organisations that they have chosen to support and that can vary. There are constitutions that back up those organisations whether they be Beef and Lamb or a horticultural organisation. On that basis it is very important that those people who are paying the levy have a say as to whether those levies continue or not. That having been proven and supported by the Regulations Review Committee it is then appropriate that we have this piece of legislation coming through the House so that we validate these regulations again.On that basis it is a pleasure to support this bill. We look forward to it reaching through the Committee stage and the third reading.DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): New Zealand First supports this year’s Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill. Amongst other things the bill would validate this year’s superannuation rate order. This will confirm an automatic increase in the rate of New Zealand superannuation as set out in schedule 2 of the Social Security (Rates of Benefits and Allowances) Order.For people living entirely on New Zealand superannuation in New Zealand this will of course be welcome but it is in fact hardly enough for a reasonable retirement income for people these days. The rates of increase in power charges council rates insurance premiums and many other basic living expenses indicate that New Zealand superannuation is simply not keeping up with the cost of living. Over the years successive Governments have in fact whittled away the New Zealand superannuation entitlement one way or the other. And now I see that Labour wants to increase the age of eligibility from 65 to 67 which is not something that New Zealand First would ever support and which I am sure baby boomers and those looking forward to retirement at the age of 65—especially those who actually need to retire at 65—would not support.The Government of course has not shown its hand on this issue or on superannuation issues generally and as a result there is much speculation in the community about what will happen to superannuation in the future. Baby boomers are likely to get a bad deal whichever of the major parties succeeds in 2014 and I and New Zealand First believe that that amounts to a breach of the social contract. This system is based on taxation and it is based on superannuation being available at 65 and at a rate that equates to at least two-thirds of the average wage. We in New Zealand First do not want to see either of the major parties or the New Zealand Government generally resile from that social contract. We think that that is wrong.In fact New Zealand First is the only party that can be relied upon to keep the retirement age at 65 with no means testing. You certainly could not rely on those people opposite when it comes to superannuation. The Government has not shown its hand but that means only that it is not being upfront about what it really wants as far as superannuation is concerned.New Zealand First is absolutely certain about 65 years being the age of eligibility and no means testing. And when possible New Zealand First would increase the rate of superannuation by 1 or 2 percentage points in relation to the average wage to recognise the hardship that people living entirely on superannuation are now in from the age of 65. We believe that it is affordable well into the future if priorities are well ordered and there is real growth in the economy but we do think much more is needed.The issues of overseas pensions and eligibility for immigrants need to be addressed. Immigrants resident for at least 10 years get full New Zealand superannuation even though they may have made little or no contribution to the New Zealand economy whereas people who work 45 years in New Zealand will get exactly the same. That does not seem right to us. And then there is the issue of returning expatriates—what is called the silver tsunami—those 1 million people living overseas half a million of whom live in Australia. Even if a relatively small percentage of those people come back to New Zealand the impact on the New Zealand superannuation liability is going to be very significant.To address these issues I have a member’s bill in the ballot system which is entitled the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Pro Rata Entitlement) Amendment Bill and I would encourage the Government and all members to have a look at it. It means that migrants and expatriates would get New Zealand superannuation only according to their period of residence in New Zealand and that is something that I think needs to be urgently addressed in this country. By addressing those issues relating to the entitlement rates for migrants and returning expatriates we can make a major contribution to assist with the economic sustainability of New Zealand superannuation we can therefore improve the rate of New Zealand superannuation for those people who rely on it entirely and especially we can retain the age of 65 years for eligibility for the future permanently and with no means testing.New Zealand First does support this bill but also encourages a much more comprehensive review of New Zealand superannuation than simply confirming schedule 2 of the order which confirms the automatic increase for superannuation this year.SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): It is a pleasure to be able to stand and take a short call and to join with members from across the House in supporting this Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill in its second reading. As others have said this is a bill that confirms and validates various orders and regulations that need to be confirmed by our Parliament. It is a bill that is a formal and technical requirement. It is an annual requirement and it is one that even though it is a small bill with a quite grand name is an important part of our constitutional framework.Therefore it is a great pleasure as I said to stand in support of this bill which as I say has broad support across the House. I commend the bill to the House and look forward to its progress with vigour.PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—TeAtatū): Labour is supporting this Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill. Why? Because this is the high point of John Key’s bold and energetic effort to build a brighter future for New Zealand. It is the sharp end this bill of National’s programme to transform the New Zealand economy and tackle the big issues.For anyone who has just tuned in to this debate my apologies. I want to explain that the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill is a bill that will prevent the lapse or expiry of a number of other bits of legislation that have sunset clauses built into them. It deals with such things as the Animal Products Act the Commodity Levies Act the Customs and Excise Act the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act road-user charges and the War Pensions Act. What it does essentially is roll over levies rates of taxation and rates of payment.I wanted to follow up really on the comments of a couple of other colleagues who have talked about road-user charges which is one of the bits of subordinate legislation that are covered by this bill. It is worth noting that as well as rolling over the current set of road-user charges as this bill does at this time the Government is actively pursuing raising road-user charges and raising the petrol excise as part of a mad scramble to try to find alternative and additional ways to fund its State highway building programme.The Government has announced that Transmission Gully is going to be funded through a public-private partnership which as has been stated is really just an elaborate way—and an expensive way I should add—of borrowing over a period of time. It is a way of front-ending a huge piece of roading expenditure without having to fund it up front out of the National Land Transport Fund. The Government as well as making it easier to do public-private partnerships is legislating to make it easier to bring in toll roads. All of this is an elaborate strategy to front-end the biggest motorway building programme this country has ever seen. Nobody would object to that if those mega-motorway projects were seen to be good value. But I think people do object to their road-user charges and their petrol excise going on projects of which a number are white elephants that will be a weight around this country’s neck for a long time to come.Many of the roads of national significance are of such poor quality. I raise the example of the Kapiti Expressway which was shown recently in a leaked report produced by the engineering firmBeca Group to have a benefit-cost ratio of 0.2 meaning that at a cost of about $600 million it would take that project 30 years to deliver an economic benefit equivalent to about $120 million. That is an indication of the incredibly low-quality spending in the transport portfolio by this Government.I think that people—including those of the Road Transport Forum who are not known to be critics of building new roads and motorways. Even the Road Transport Forum recently described the roads of national significance as “gold-plated”. When the Road Transport Forum says motorway projects are gold-plated that means I think that there is clearly something wrong with them.The other factor that relates to road-user charges—and Julie Anne Genter commented about this—is that revenue from road-user charges and petrol excise is falling and that is putting additional pressure on the National Land Transport Fund and making it more difficult for the Government to front-end the building of these massive motorway projects. People are driving less and traffic volumes have been static if not falling for a number of years—6 years or so—in New Zealand. It is part of a very well-documented international trend that people are driving less. One of the interesting things about that is that actually the younger generation are driving less. They are choosing tolive in downtown urban communities. They rely on the web much more to provide a sense of community and connectedness now and the car is no longer this universal symbol of freedom and aspiration especially in our larger cities. For all those reasons people are driving less and road-user charges are generating and are set to generate a much smaller and smaller part of the revenue that we need—the $3 billion to $4 billion a year that we are accustomed to spending on our transport system.That raises some real questions of course. It raises questions about the quality and the value for money of our spending on transport and it raises for this Government and future Governments real questions about how we will pay for—how we will generate the revenue for—our transport system. It is clear I think particularly when we think about what is likely to happen with a move to more and more electric vehicles and more people travelling by public transport that diesel tax and petrol tax are not in the medium term to long term going to be able to generate the revenue that we need.Those questions I think should be in the back of our minds in relation to particularly the provision about road-user charges in this rather tame and unexciting but nevertheless necessary bill. Thank you.SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): It is a pleasure to take a short call on this bill the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill. I am not going to do what the previous member Phil Twyford just did and start apologising. This Government has nothing to apologise for. We are very keen very keen and positive on what we are continuing to achieve.As many have noted this is a bill that goes through in order to validate regulations. I am very pleased to hear that all parties in the House are supporting it. We do not want a repeat of the debacle yesterday when a certain party decided to vote against a procedural motion on an Appropriation Bill. This really is an opportunity to put regulations in place.I note as have others that this has also seen a change around superannuation and war pensions. I think that will be particularly pleasing to people across the country. Certainly different members fromTāmaki are happy about that. We want to get this bill through and move on to other legislation. I am happy to support it.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call. Raymond Huo—5 minutes.RAYMOND HUO (Labour): I rise to take a call to support this bill the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill. Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) bills are introduced annually to confirm and/or validate subordinate legislation—that is regulations and in this case orders. As the purpose clause confirms subordinate legislation has to be confirmed to avoid the effect of provisions—namely sunset clauses—lapsing or being deemed to be revoked after the lapse of a certain time unless confirmed or validated by an Act of Parliament. That is the reason why we are here this morning.I am particularly interested in Part 2 in clause 8 “Commodity Levies Act 1990” and paragraph (b) on the Commodity Levies (Kiwifruit) Order 2012 which confirms an Order in Council. This order requires kiwifruit growers to pay a levy on fruit grown for export and Mr Colin King just touched very briefly upon the relevant clauses of the levy. As far as this particular clause is concerned we can see that Kiwifruit Growers Inc. may then spend this money on purposes including crop health and protection.But what this bill does not say is the story behind this which is that spending money on crop health and protection would be too little too late because the horse has already bolted. The kiwifruit industry is on the verge of collapse and that is because of this National-ACT Government’s inaction over thePsa disease.Hon Anne Tolley: What?RAYMOND HUO: The Ministry for Primary Industries released a report this year—I am just quoting from the report released by the Minister’s own ministry and I notice that that Minister is shaking her head. That report states that “shortfalls in biosecurity checks … were largely to blame” for the arrival of thePsa vine disease in 2010. The Ministry for Primary Industries’ report also states that “MAF was too slow to respond once the disease was detected”—Hon Anne Tolley: Really?RAYMOND HUO: —well read the report rather than interjecting on my speech—“staff failed to recognise that kiwifruit pollen could carryPsa and imports fromPsa-affected countries should have been halted” immediately. Now the Minister for Primary Industries is the Hon David Carter. It was his ministry that produced this report. So now we have an industry that is virtually a basket case because of the Government’s inaction. Kiwifruit orchards that were worth as much as $400000 a hectare are now worth as little as a tenth of that. The growers say that this Government needs to take responsibility for the outbreak and help get the growers back on their feet. But the Hon David Carter is washing his hands and now they blame him because collectively this National and ACT Government has been taking a hands-off approach. Thank you.STEFFAN BROWNING (Green): I rise to speak to the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill. We in the Green Party are in support of it. It is a process bill. I note that the Regulations Review Committee has suggested that it can be done in a better way and I think it was very positive to hear the Government saying earlier in a speech that it is prepared to look at how it might be able to streamline it when this same process is undertaken next time. So that is a very positive thing.I will mention the Commodity Levies Act part of it as well. It is unfortunate I think that there is not at least one more commodity levy mentioned there. We have got navel oranges kiwifruitnashi pears arable crops cereal silage maize and asparagus. The organic sector in New Zealand is able to get absolutely no levies. The organic sector is not funded by the Government either. This Government has chosen not to support the organic sector in getting a commodity levy order in operation so that it could actually be funded for the benefit that it would bring to New Zealand as does happen in numerous other countries around the world particularly progressive countries in Europe and Scandinavia.The organic sector talked to the Government about how the organic sector might get support and everybody realised that getting another commodity levy in was no small task. We accept that there is inevitably in the introduction grower or producer resistance albeit the growers and producers get a very good benefit once the levy is in and the organisations and their research supporters get the benefit from that. I am looking forward to a time when the organic sector in New Zealand is properly appreciated for the benefit it does from building soils which are built for intergenerational support and production; for the health benefits that can come from better-quality food; and for the extra good green jobs it can create from that. That would actually come if there was proper support. It is a shame that this Government rather than getting in behind and in lieu of a commodity levy order for the organic sector actually dropped the process where growers could actually get some support towards getting certification into organics and would actually be steered through the course that was needed to do that. It was working it had good measureables and initially the Government allowed it to roll over but it closed it down. Why? Is it partly the fact that it might show up other parts of production because there is actually some best practice that could be shown in that? It is hard to tell apart from the fact that maybe there was not seen to be that immediate cash cow that we get from one of our other sectors.The Greens as I say support this bill and we are happy to be part of a cross-House support of it. But the note I have made of organics and the commodities levies the lack of support needs to be noted too. We hope that this Government and other parties will end up with a cross-House support for the organic sector as part of the “clean green” image and brand that has been touted from the Government side earlier in the day. Thank you.KATRINA SHANKS (National): It is my pleasure to take a call on this bill the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill today. The purpose of this bill is to confirm and validate subordinate legislation made under various Acts. This bill is required every year. It is a technical bill. Traditionally all parties in the House support the bill and this year is no different. We have received cross-House support for this bill.The Regulations Review Committee endorsed this bill with no changes needed to alter it to bring it back to the House to progress. We did raise the issue that it would have been quite nice to have this bill before the select committee a bit earlier because we did have a discussion around whether some of the levies and regulations still need to have subordinate legislation imposed on them. It would have been quite nice to have a bit more of a discussion on each one in the select committee before the bill came back into the House.This bill covers 17 orders of regulations under eight different Acts. It is my pleasure to support this bill to the House today.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill be now read a second time.Ayes119New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7;Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes1Mana 1.Bill read a second time.In CommitteeHon ANNE TOLLEY (Deputy Leader of the House):Mōrena Mr Chairman. I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one question.The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is none.Parts 1 and 2 and clauses 1 and 2Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Deputy Leader of the House): Regrettably the bill as introduced omitted regulations made on 5 June 2012 under the National Animal Identification and Tracing Act 2012. These regulations impose levies on the owners of animals covered by the National Animal Identification and Tracing scheme. The levies contribute to the scheme’s funding. If not confirmed the regulations will be deemed revoked at the close of 30 June 2013.Part 1 agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 162 in the name of the Hon Gerry Brownlee to insert new clause 9A be agreed to.Amendment agreed to.Part 2 as amended agreed to.Clause 1 agreed to.Clause 2 agreed to.Bill reported with amendment.Report adopted.Third ReadingHon ANNE TOLLEY (Deputy Leader of the House): I moveThat the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill be now read a third time.Bill read a third time.Subantarctic Islands Marine Reserves BillFirst ReadingHon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Conservation): I moveThat the Subantarctic Islands Marine Reserves Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Local Government and Environment Committee to consider this bill.New Zealand’s Subantarctic Islands the Antipodes Islands group Bounty Islands Auckland Island Campbell Island and Snares Islands are located in the south-east of New Zealand’s exclusive economic zone. The islands and their territorial seas are internationally important for their conservation values and were awardedUnesco World Heritage status in 1998. The land area of each of the Subantarctic Islands is fully protected through having national reserve and nature reserve status. They contain exceptional marine biodiversity in a remote setting largely free from human impacts resulting in near pristine ecosystems. The islands generate significant economic activity through a multimillion-dollar wildlife tourism industry that brought between 800 and 1100 tourists visiting the islands in each of the last two seasons. Local and international visitors want to experience the climate and iconic wildlife. The islands are absolutely stunning with an abundance of native species albatross penguins sea lions fur seals and southern right whales.The islands are protected as nature reserves befitting their World Heritage status but it is not only the islands that were considered World Heritage. The high conservation values continue to the sea as does the World Heritage status which extends to the limits of the territorial sea surrounding the islands. Reserves around the Bounty Islands and Campbell Island covering 58 percent and 39 percent—and I think I have lost one of my pages but that is all right.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I’m sure you can find it.Hon KATE WILKINSON: I am sure I will Mr Speaker. The reserves around the Bounty Islands and Campbell Island cover 58 percent and 39 percent of those islands’ territorial seas respectively. In total 435163 hectares will be protected in these marine reserves. Combined with the existing marine reserves around the Auckland Islands nearly a million hectares of New Zealand’s subantarctic territorial sea will then be fully protected in a no-take marine reserve. No longer will marine conservation be lagging behind the terrestrial protection in what is one of the world’s most ecologically important natural areas.As on land beneath the surface of the sea each island group is significantly different—each with its own unique suite of habitats and species. For example the Antipodes Islands rocky reefs are dominated by encrusting corral and algae and the islands have their own unique species of bull kelp even though the reefs at the neighbouring Bounty Islands are dominated by encrusting animals such as sponges barnacles and mussels.But the difference does not end there. Although the Subantarctic Islands terrestrial areas are fully protected already as national nature reserves only at the Auckland Islands has a similar level of protection been afforded to the marine environment through the establishment of a marine reserve back in 2003. This bill rectifies that situation by extending protection out into the territorial sea around three of the subantarctic island groups. Protection that befits the World Heritage status has been accorded.I must emphasise that this bill is the result of a stakeholder-led process. Representatives of science iwi fishing and conservation groups gathered to examine the areas their marine biodiversity and the islands’ associated stakeholder interest. After public consultation recommendations were made for marine protected areas in the territorial sea around the Antipodes Islands Bounty Islands and Campbell Island groups. The bill progresses the work of the stakeholder forum by establishing the marine reserve around the Antipodes Islands covering its entire territorial sea—that is out to 12 nautical miles—and as stated establishes two large marine reserves around the Bounty Islands and Campbell Island covering 58 percent and 38 percent of those islands’ territorial seas respectively.My colleague the Hon David Carter the Minister for Primary Industries is adding further protection to the remainder of the territorial sea. In addition to existing prohibitions on bottom trawling and dredging new prohibitions on Danish seining will be introduced in an additional 250000 hectares around the three island groups. This means the territorial sea of all three island groups will have achieved marine protected status.The creation of marine reserves through the bill recognises existing users. The established ling fishery will be allowed to continue using long lining in some areas around the Bounty Islands as this technique has a very limitedbycatch. The bill also grants a 5-year window to allow for a potential deep-water crab fishery to be explored around Campbell Island. At the end of that 5-year period the status of this area will be reviewed. If it is decided that a viable and sustainable crab fishery does not exist then the entire territorial sea around Campbell Island could become a marine reserve. These will be the first marine protected areas to be implemented under the Government’s Marine Protected Areas Policy which sets out New Zealand’s new more coordinated and collaborative approach to protecting our marine biodiversity.The Government is introducing the bill in order to establish these marine reserves in a timely and efficient manner. This recognises the comprehensive process undertaken by the forum in planning for and consulting on the marine reserves proposal. To proceed with individual applications for each marine reserve under the existing Marine Reserves Act 1971 would be to duplicate some of the processes that the forum has already undertaken. This Government is looking to update that old marine reserves legislation to provide for a better statutory process for establishing marine reserves in due course. In the meantime however this bill will give the seas surrounding three of New Zealand’s Subantarctic Islands the protection they deserve. This bill fulfils the expectations of the World Heritage Committee that New Zealand will protect these internationally recognised conservation values in a manner befitting their status. I commend this bill to the House.Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): The Labour Party very strongly supports this legislation the Subantarctic Islands Marine Reserves Bill. In fact this legislation is the outcome of the marine protected area strategy that Labour introduced many years ago back in about 2006 or 2007. We introduced it because we understood the lessons of the northern hemisphere. The northern hemisphere ruthlessly exploited its fisheries. It has turned its seas into marine deserts. It has wiped out species.New Zealand wants to be a world leader in the area of protecting its marine and coastal areas. In fact the Labour Party policy is to achieve about 30 percent of the marine area being under some form of protection by 2020. I have to say that it is really good to be able to support something in the conservation area that the Government has introduced albeit on the back of the work that the former Labour Government did because this bill follows the shambles of the Ross Sea Marine Protected Area.New Zealand has a deep interest in the Antarctic and the subantarctic areas and we were seen as a world leader in terms of protection. We held out against the tourist and mineral developments in Antarctica and there were other countries that had a vested interest in doing it. We opposed those things from a high moral principle—that is that we have to protect our pristine Antarctic and subantarctic areas. And yet with the Ross Sea in order to protect something that at best was worth about $20 million in fisheries the National Government at the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources meeting went in there actually demonstrating that New Zealand was no different from any other country—that if our economic or commercial interests were at stake we would sacrifice our principles. We lost that moral leadership and it is a real regret that we did so because actually even in economic terms leaving aside the critical environmental and conservation issues having Christchurch as the gateway to Antarctica is worth several hundred million dollars a year to our economy.By taking a principle stand in that area we would have carried real weight in opposing the commercial exploitation of Antarctica in other ways. The United States offered a partnership for us. I think our Minister of Conservation probably supported that took it to Cabinet and was rolled. Consequently we did not go in with a joint position with the United States. In a panic we suddenly developed a joint position but by that stage it was too late and we lost the opportunity at that Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources meeting to do something significant in terms of the Ross Sea.Then of course we had the Government turning up at a conservation meeting in Korea that was the International Union for Conservation of Nature. There was a resolution there to protect theMāui’s and theHector’s dolphins the two most endangered dolphin species in the world. And what did New Zealand do under this National Government? We were one of only two countries that opposed that additional protection. That is a matter of absolute shame.It is good that we are seeing a result from the earlier period under a Labour Government in relation to this bill. This bill creates three new marine reserves in the territorial sea around three of New Zealand’s Subantarctic Islands groups. Those reserves are the MoutereMahue which isMāori for “abandoned island” but better known perhaps as the Antipodes Islands Marine Reserve; the MoutereHauriri which is an interesting term beingMāori for “angry wind” which is probably an appropriate description of the Bounty Islands and perhaps our opponents across the House; and the third marine protected area will be the Moutere Ihupuku which is literally “nose and belly”. I tried to find out what an explanation for that would be and the best Shane Jones could offer is that maybe it is about this Government being belly up.The other two things this bill does that are worthy of support are that it provides for a review of the Campbell Island Marine Reserve in 5 years’ time to consider protecting the remainder of the Campbell Island territorial sea by including all of it in the marine reserve. I hope indeed that that will happen in 5 years’ time. The other thing it does interestingly is deem certain commanding officers of the New Zealand Defence Force to be rangers under the Marine Reserves Act 1971 in respect of the marine reserve. That makes sense because the most frequent visitors to those island groups is of course the Royal New Zealand Navy and it has a very positive role that it can play.The New Zealand Subantarctic Islands and their territorial seas have been internationally recognised for their outstanding conservation values. Indeed back in 1998 we were proud that they were awarded World Heritage status. The marine reserves and the prohibitions on Danish seining combined with the existing Fisheries Act and regulations and prohibitions on bottom trawling and dredging will provide those marine protected areas over the wider area of the territorial sea of the New Zealand Subantarctic Islands with the protection they need.There will be some impact on commercial activities. It will change the areas where commercial fishing for ling takes place for example and it will limit mineral-related activities. Prospecting exploration and mining will be restricted to low-impact activities and it is appropriate that we put constraints on those forms of exploitation.On the other side of the ledger there will be real potential benefits for nature-based tourism in the area. The proposal represents the first comprehensive opportunity to address New Zealand’s World Heritage obligation in respect of the territorial seas around these island groups. Action was taken earlier in 2003 to fully protect as a marine reserve the territorial seas around the Auckland Islands. That was an initiative under the last Government and it was a good initiative. Why is this justified? Well apart from the obvious factor that they have World Heritage status each of these island groups is highly distinct biologically geologically and geographically. Each has threatened and/or endemic species living or breeding only on or around that particular island and the islands in the surrounding waters have been subject to minimal human impact and are therefore as ecosystems very close to being pristine. It is in our interests as a country and it is our obligation as a member of the world international community that we provide that protection.The land areas of the islands were of course protected way back in 1977 under the Reserves Act. The Auckland Islands and the sea around them were protected as a marine mammal sanctuary again back in 1978 and the territorial sea as I mentioned earlier was fully protected in 2003. A marine protected areas policy was jointly developed between the Department of Conservation and the Ministry of Fisheries under the last Labour Government and was released in January 2006. It provides the framework for protecting marine diversity by establishing a network of marine protected areas. The Subantarctic Islands Marine Protection Planning Forum was set up again under Labour in 2008. That gathered the information it did the consultation it heard the submissions and it presented the Government with options. The bill today is a product of Government decisions made in December 2010.We do have an obligation to meet the responsibilities associated with the World Heritage status listing. That means we need to acknowledge that the natural sites are of a quality that is of global significance and we must undertake to protect and conserve them on behalf of the world community. Labour will be fully supporting this legislation.NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central): I am delighted to support this Subantarctic Islands Marine Reserves Bill at its first reading. I absolutely agree with the Hon Phil Goff that it is great to see these marine reserves being created particularly when they are in such a distinctive area which has been recognised by World Heritage status.The Local Government and Environment Committee is very keen to get on with this work. We have done a lot of work on marine protection already this year with the exclusive economic zone legislation and it is the beginning of a whole tranche of legislation with the new marine reserves legislation to be introduced next year. While we were listening to submissions on the exclusive economic zone legislation we learnt how much New Zealanders care about the sea—not that we actually had to be told. All New Zealanders seem to be connected. We come from an island with huge sea massesaround us. We like to look at the sea we like to sail on the sea and we like to swim and dive and surf in the sea. So it is particularly important that we get our marine protection right. The National Government absolutely supports that.We have a proud history of marine protection. We passed the original Marine Reserves Act in 1971 and that established the first marine reserve at Cape Rodney in 1977 so it was the beginning of a whole list of things that have come up to this day. Since we have been in Government we have announced nine new marine reserves which is a dramatic increase on what was there before and I think it is about another 36 percent of protected areas. Once these marine reserves are gazetted 9.4 percent of New Zealand’s territorial seas will be protected by marine reserves and I think that is something we can all be proud of.But I would really like to focus on these particular reserves. They surround the islands—Antipodes Island Bounty Islands and Campbell Island. Those are islands way down south about 800 kilometres south-east of Stewart Island / Rakiura. Nobody lives there at the moment although there have been times when they have been inhabited by sealers and then there has been some pastoral farming done there but nobody lives there now and they are protected with nature reserve status.What this bill will do is protect the seas around them and that is particularly important because these islands are known particularly as important seabird breeding areas particularly of the albatross but also petrels penguins and shags and also surprisingly enough the Antipodes parakeet which is a brightly coloured parakeet that seems sometimes out of place on these cold and windswept islands. As a matter of interest they are also well known for their mega-herbs. These are enormous plants with colourful flowers that are a little bit like desert flowerings. They come all together and there are magnificent herbs mega-herbs across the islands. They had been eaten down in the past but since the protected area status they have now been flourishing. Just as a matter of interest this is a similar model to what we have done with the Auckland Islands protecting both the land and the water and that seems to have been particularly successful.So the Local Government and Environment Committee is looking forward to dealing with this bill. We are very keen and enthusiastic to get it right and so we are hoping that maybe Parliament might insist that we take a trip to these islands as a select committee visit. Thank you.GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour): To take up the suggestion of the member who has just resumed her seat Nicky Wagner I do not think the visit should be restricted to the Local Government and Environment Committee. I believe that anyone who has made the effort to be here at 20 past 12 on a Wednesday afternoon deserves the right to be there and I see Amy Adams is seconding that idea as well.The Labour Party is certainly supporting the Subantarctic Islands Marine Reserves Bill. I think it is worth noting that the area we are talking about here actually does have World Heritage status. New Zealand should be rightly proud but also at the same time feel a sense of responsibility for ensuring that we continue to support the status of these very important parts of the planet.Previous speakers have gone through in some detail the nature of the islands that we are talking about and the process that they have been through in terms of protection initially for the land itself under the Reserves Act and then carrying on through there with the Auckland Islands territorial sea becoming fully protected in 2003 and moving through various regulations to the point that we can reach now where these sets of islands will be protected. As I say on this side of the House we are strongly supportive of that process.What I wanted to focus my comments on in this first reading was the way in which this legislation comes to the House. This is special legislation to create these marine reserves. We are not creating these reserves under the law that currently exists for the creation of marine reserves the Marine Reserves Act 1971. A number of excellent things occurred in New Zealand in 1971. I was born for instance as one of those things. That is a moment that many people will note I am sure. Louise Upston was possibly born just a little before then I think.Louise Upston: No that year. Come on!GRANT ROBERTSON: Oh that year? That year sorry. I thought it was the year before. I apologise—Louise Upston: No 1971.GRANT ROBERTSON: I withdraw and apologise for that—another 1971 baby there as well. So 1971 was overall—on balance—a good year although it is starting to waver a little. But overall it was a good year and it was the year in which New Zealand passed its marine reserves legislation that put us at the forefront of marine protection in the world. This was legislation that was world-leading in terms of creating effectively no-take zones around our coastline. Other countries were well behind. My colleague Phil Goff has already spoken about the damage that has been done in other jurisdictions by not having this kind of legislation.The issue that New Zealand now has fast-forwarding 40-odd years is that New Zealand is now actually falling behind in terms of the way that we go about marine protection.Colin King: There was nothing done for 9 years.GRANT ROBERTSON: We are left with 40-year-old legislation that is in fact cumbersome. It has been suggested that this is something that could have had something done about it in Labour’s 9 years. I actually do accept that. I accept that the last Labour Government did need to try to make progress on this. To that end it had marine reserves legislation that sat on the books. The problem the Labour Government had in these days of MMP and minority Governments was getting a coalition of parties that would support that legislation. I recall this very well because it was part of my working life at the time to try to find the support for that legislation. Members on the other side of the House who have such enthusiasm now for marine reserves may wish to reflect that they were not in favour of that legislation but neither unfortunately was a majority of the House.What that now means in 2012 is that we are left with legislation that is in fact hopelessly out of date and very inefficient. For this bill one of the considerations that officials had to have was whether or not this bill should be special legislation to create these marine reserves or whether or not it should go through the Marine Reserves Act process. Well what the regulatory impact statement on this bill tells us is that the average time to establish a marine reserve under the Marine Reserves Act is 12 years. It is between 1 year and 23 years. But 12 years is not a figure that anyone in this House can be proud of. We need to be able to establish marine reserves in a way that is a lot more efficient and a lot more comprehensive than that.So I do think that it is time for this House to turn its attention back to the legislative framework for the establishment of marine reserves. The Environmental Defence Society has this year put out a publication around its views of what needs to happen in terms of marine reserves legislation. I had the honour of launching that earlier this year. I tend to agree with the society that the time has come not to return to the legislation that Labour had in front of the House 10 years ago because time has passed that as well but to create new marine reserves legislation that actually allows for the efficient promulgation of these kinds of reserves that allows for the creation of a network ofdifferent types of marine protected areas all the way from no-take areas through to the full protected reserves that most people would understand.We need to ensure that the purpose of any legislation that puts in place marine reserves is the protection of biodiversity because at the moment that is not completely clear. It particularly is not clear if you are creating no-take areas under the Fisheries Act because that purpose is not even there. So having a focus on the protection of biodiversity having the ability to create a range of instruments and having a network of marine reserves and protected areas is the kind of approach and framework that I would like to see us undertake. I would hope that we could work across the House to find a way of developing that kind of legislation. It must not be as difficult as it is now to establish these kinds of reserves.Alongside that the other thing that New Zealand Governments have been working on since the late 1990s is the establishment of some kind of integrated oceans policy in which marine reserves can sit. There are some good models of this around New Zealand that we can look at. I am thinking here about the spatial planning exercise in the Hauraki Gulf and elsewhere where we can actually see integrated oceans management supporting the protection of biodiversity. So I do urge the House that we do need to return to this question of what new modern marine reserves legislation would look like and ensure that we take on the very best practice around the world so that New Zealand once again can be a world leader in that area.There is one specific aspect of this bill that I think would feed into that. My colleague Phil Goff has already mentioned the fact that the establishment of these marine reserves actually arose from a process called the Subantarctic Islands Marine Protection Planning Forum. That was a piece of work that was begun under the previous Government. It is based on the marine protected areas policy from 2006. But the situation we have now is that we have an excellent policy on marine protected areas and legislation that does not match up with that policy which is why we need to make changes to allow marine protected areas and marine reserves and other types of protected areas to be included.But the process that was used in that planning forum is one that should be incorporated in any future legislation. That is a far more collaborative process that brings together stakeholders within a particular area and gives them the opportunity to be part of developing these models. I think there is an even better model and that was the one that was used to develop the Fiordland (Te Moana o Atawhenua) Marine Area. That was a model that truly included all of those in the community who were interested in marine protection in Fiordland including recreational fishers not that there are any recreational fishers in the Subantarctic Islands. But it included all of the stakeholders who would have wanted to have a say. It was quite a long process but at the end of it there was universal buy in and importantly an ongoing role for that community in Fiordland in the continuing management of marine space.As a result I think that there are some things in the way that these marine reserves were created that could find their way into future legislation. But what I would not like to see is the need to continue ad hoc development of marine reserves. What we need is comprehensive legislation that facilitates the efficient creation of marine reserves based on the principles of the protection of biodiversity and enables New Zealand to move beyond just our territorial waters and out into the exclusive economic zone and protects the marine areas that are required in those spaces. The exclusive economic zone legislation that was passed by this Government did not sufficiently take that into account and it is going to limit New Zealand severely in being able to play the role that it should in protecting our marine areas.We do endorse this bill. These islands are an important part of the World Heritage network and I hope that members of the House will take on board the importance of this kind of legislation and give New Zealanders a framework for establishing marine reserves that we can be proud of.GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker.Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. It is good to rise to take a call on the Subantarctic Islands Marine Reserves Bill. It is good to be voting for marine reserves legislation in our Parliament. I do not think we do enough of it and it is good to see we are getting cross-party support behind this bill.What we are talking about are the Subantarctic Islands—the Antipodes Islands the Bounty Islands Campbell Island. They are special unique pristine parts that are iconic to New Zealanders and iconic for our environment and our biodiversity with incredible species of biodiversity down there. Obviously the islands have played a role in our historical development as a country and as a nation. We have seen livestock run wild. We have seen people shipwrecked there two centuries ago and establish crafts to try to get off. They have got a wonderful tale and it is good to be voting in our Parliament to support greater protection of them.I have not had the privilege to travel down to any of the Subantarctic Islands so I would second the call by the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee for an investigation or a trip down there. I think if more New Zealanders could get a chance to visit these amazing parts of our country that so few of us get the chance to visit there would be a greater desire to protect them. I think the work of artists in particular to highlight the special places that we have has been particularly effective. I would like to congratulate all those artists and the groups involved in the Subantarctic artists programme.What this legislation does is set up marine reserves in the territorial sea around our Subantarctic Islands. We see the entire Antipodes Islands protected we see 58 percent of the Bounty Islands protected and we see only 39 percent of the Campbell Island’s territorial sea protected. I would like to touch on the point made by the member Grant Robertson. It is pretty incredible that we have to resort to legislation to enact marine reserves in New Zealand given we have had legislation—world-leading legislation for its time—on our books since 1971. It is an outrage that we cannot get marine reserves in New Zealand essentially without legislation. I think it is an indictment on our law books at the moment. I think it is an indictment of successive Governments that have not tackled it. Hopefully this can act as a catalyst so that we can progress with coherent robust marine reserves legislation.I have got to say before I go into the substance of this speech that although I was heartened to hear that marine reserves legislation was going to be enacted next year I am deeply disappointed that this was the forum that the member Nicky Wagner would take to address this to the country. I had a commitment earlier this year and a week ago from the Minister Kate Wilkinson that we would see the marine reserves legislation this year. It is disappointing to see it delayed yet another year. What we know is that the marine reserve bills currently languishing at the select committees have the silver medal. They are probably never going to get the infamous trout legislation gold medal for the amount of time left at a select committee but we are talking about legislation sitting there stuck there for almost a decade. I think it is an outrage given that we know that on average it takes 12 years in this country to get a marine reserve under our antiquated difficult-to-enact legislation. Although it is good to hear that we will be seeing some legislative action on marine reserves this probably was not the forum to announce that it has been delayed yet another year.But on to the good—it is good to see this legislation passing. What it is going to be doing is adding 435000 hectares to New Zealand’s total marine reserve area. This is a big deal because at the moment we are doing woefully in terms of marine reserve coverage. Nicky Wagner will say: “Look we’ve got 9 percent of our territorial sea in marine reserves. Aren’t we doing so well? We’re so close to our 10 percent target.” But what the member did not point out is that in fact our 10 percent target is not just our territorial sea; it is our territorial sea plus our exclusive economic zone which is the space of water between 12 and 200 nautical miles. What we know is that at the moment we are at 0.31 percent of our combined waters. Only 0.31 percent—that is less than 1 percent—of our waters are protected in marine reserves. Although it is good to be seeing these 435000 extra hectares added this is only going to be taking us up to 0.41 percent I understand on advice from the Parliamentary Library. It is a start and we congratulate the start—that is why we are voting for the bill—but we could be going a whole lot further.We are disappointed that we are not seeing the entirety of these islands protected. What we know is that they are World Heritage sites. It would have been pretty unacceptable I think for the Government to not be enacting this legislation given they are World Heritage sites and given they have been World Heritage sites for quite a while. So we think that there should be greater protection. We think that the 5-year crab trial around Campbell Island is not out of order. We should not be having to go to the ends of the world to get our seafood. The problem is of course that we are fishing too hard and fast around our waters. We should not have to go to Campbell Island. We should not have to go to the Ross Sea. We should be able to sustainably manage our fisheries.A quick legislative point I would like to question is clause 8. The text—and it seems quite odd language—is: “The Department of Conservation (or its replacement) …”. I am not aware of any legislation where we refer to a department by saying: “The Department of Conservation (or its replacement) …”. I guess the question is: why are we using such odd drafting language? Is there an ulterior motive? It would be interesting to explore that in the select committee.This bill has come about as a result of the collaborative process the planning forum. It is really good to see. We saw it on the West Coast as well. But it is disappointing that we have seen only two. It was trumpeted quite loudly by the current Government when it came into Government that it was a great process. It was trying different things such as water management. But why have we stuck with only two? Why is this the last one? Why have they not taken the lessons? Obviously we can get a collaborative buy-in from both fisheries and conservationists. Why have we not seen another one?I guess the question is: if we are going to have real cross-party action on marine reserves why are we not doing more? Why are we not updating the legislation now not delaying it yet another year? Why is the Government delaying and refusing marine reserves now like it is in the Akaroa Harbour? Why is the Government not taking action right now? Tomorrow it could introduce legislation to protect the Kermadec Islands; tomorrow the Government could introduce legislation that would make the world’s largest marine reserve and it would displace on average only $100000 worth of fishing. A Government that has got such a dire terrible environmental track record—which is being run through the mud of the international press for the clean green 100 percent pure myth the sham and has been called to account—tomorrow could introduce legislation to protect the marine waters around the Kermadec Islands. This would be 620000 square kilometres. It would displace as I said only a small amount of fishing. It is something good that I think everyone in this House could support. It is one of those win-wins of which I think the Government has not taken enough opportunities.Likewise we have seen an embarrassing situation with the negotiations over the Ross Sea. The Government could be doing more there. It is likewise with the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act which the Government benches raised. We have got a real risk of these activities such as deep-sea oil drilling occurring in our oceans. I think the Minister for the Environment should rule out making deep-sea oil drilling a permitted activity. I think it would be outrageous that one would require a consent to build a deck but one would not require a consent under the legislation which is so new that it has been passed only this year to drill in our waters with the corresponding risk that that entails.Under the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act the Government has the ability to identify the special areas in our exclusive economic zone—these areas of amazing biodiversity. I think the Government should be more proactive and map out where these will be protected into the future if we have marine reserve legislation that allows marine reserves to be extended out into the exclusive economic zone.Ultimately what we need is a coherent oceans strategy. At the moment we have got a piecemeal approach that is unfortunately putting at priority the interests of deep-sea oil drillers not marine protection. The interests of toothfish fisheries and crab fisheries at Campbell Island are put at priority not marine protection. What we see are dolphin sanctuaries that do not provide sanctuary to dolphins off the coast of Taranaki. We see the benthic protected areas that do not protect from activities like dredging for phosphate on the Chatham Rise. It is good to see progress. We can do a whole lot more. The Green Party is committed to work with the Government if it can to get better marine reserves legislation and a coherent oceans policy which is only going to protect our waters. They are so special and unique and such a part of who we are as New Zealanders. Kia ora.JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth):Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. Thank you very much for the opportunity to rise and speak to the Subantarctic Islands Marine Reserves Bill. Members on the other side of the House will be pleased to note that in National’s 2011 conservation manifesto we committed to introducing a new marine reserves bill—expected next year from the Minister of Conservation—to improve the process for creating marine reserves and allowing them outside the 12 nautical mile territorial sea into the exclusive economic zone. That must be good news to members of the Opposition. It is very important for us to realise that.This is an excellent bill which is progressing the establishment of these marine reserves. I want to pay tribute right now to the conservation work that our New Zealand Navy is doing. Right now sailing down to the southern seas is the HMNZS Otago. It is going down to the Ross Sea to patrol on behalf of the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources and the New Zealand Government to ensure that there is suitable patrol there and compliance by nations in that place. Even right now down the west coast of the North Island the inshore patrol vessel the HMNZS Rotoiti is on dolphin patrol looking forMāui’s dolphins. In fact from the last report I have heard that there have been 8000 observer hours on vessels off the Taranaki coast but unfortunately at this point in time there has not been aMāui’s dolphin sighted. It is probably too cold. There is certainly a lot of activity off the west coast of the North Island to look at those situations. Of course there are some biological concerns regarding matters of infection in that population and we would like to see some progress on those.I am very happy to commend this bill to the House. Thank you.ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First): I take a call on behalf of New Zealand First on the Subantarctic Islands Marine Reserves Bill. We also of course will be supportingthis bill and we are very proud to be part of it. Looking at the background to these islands I see that the first islands the Antipodes Islands—aptly named—were first charted in 1800 by Captain Henry Waterhouse on the British shipHMS Reliance. So it goes back an awful long way in terms of the origins of modern civilisation in New Zealand that these islands were first discovered in about 1800.The three different groups of islands—the Antipodes Islands the Bounty Islands and Campbell Island—are actually quite a distance apart. The Bounty Islands are the northernmost the Antipodes Islands are right out on the date line—it is probably about the first place in the world to ever see the rising sun I would think because it is right on the date line—and then Campbell Island is further down getting down towards the Auckland Islands. So that covers a vast area of ocean a vast area of our exclusive economic zone. It is a most important area because it is such a huge area for marine life for the sea and what comes from the sea and for the impacts that has on the New Zealand land mass as a result.So it is very important that we do have these areas protected and important that these marine reserves are put through in terms of supporting also that World Heritage Site situation. You know it is very very precious that when we have these World Heritage Sites they also have the appropriate legislation such as this to back them up and to make sure that that is the case.The islands are a long way away—860 kilometres south-east of Stewart Island are the Antipodes Islands. When you think about that distance it is very very significant and it shows you the outreach that New Zealand has. When we were sitting at the Local Government and Environment Committee this year on the exclusive economic zone legislation to understand that we have the fifth largest economic zone in the world was quite impressive really for a small country of 4½ million. To have such a massive exclusive economic zone is a big responsibility. It is a significant requirement on our country to make sure that we do what is best by that massive zone and that massive potential resource out there and to make sure that if resources are taken from it they are taken in an environmentally sustainable manner that will not have adverse effects on the precious environment that we have.So we are very pleased. Like all marine reserves around New Zealand the more the merrier. Those of us who are familiar with some of the more inshore marine areas such as Goat Island always marvel at the outcomes and the improvement in the fish and the sea life that are there as a result. Therefore the more marine reserves such as this—and in these remote areas as well—that can protect our marine life help grow our marine life and expand the resources that are there the better. So New Zealand First is very pleased to support this bill.SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I am very pleased to support this bill the Subantarctic Islands Marine Reserves Bill and the continuing good work of the National Government in areas of conservation. I commend the Minister of Conservation in particular for this bill. What it is about has been made very clear by other members of the House but it does sit on that ongoing process of work that this Government is committed to. I note as my colleague Jonathan Young pointed out that the Marine Reserves Bill is anticipated to be put forward through the House next year to make the process of organising these reserves much easier. So as with previous bills today I ask that it move swiftly and quickly to conclusion. These are positive bills and positive actions by the Government and I look forward to the support of the House.SUE MORONEY (Labour): It is a pleasure indeed to rise and speak on a really positive bill in this House because sometimes it seems like we are relentlessly debating things that are negative for the future of this country—certainly under this Government. But the Subantarctic Islands Marine Reserves Bill is a really positive bill and it doesfollow on from a tradition and a culture that have been brought about in this country over many Governments now but I think in particular I am very proud of Labour’s track record in this regard with our recognising that special connection that New Zealanders do have with the sea and that special commitment that we have to protecting it in the best way that we can.The three marine reserves that are set aside by this bill sound like a very exciting part of our country—a part that I have never been to as many other members have said in this debate. But none the less just because we have not been there does not mean we cannot understand the special connection and the importance of actually protecting all the species involved—[Interruption] That is right I am not going to apply Maggie Barry’s Standing Orders to this particular debate. I have not been there. I do not expect I will ever go there in my lifetime but I still think it is important to support this bill none the less.I am not going to take up too much more of the House’s time on this. I just reflect that Grant Robertson’s contribution was interesting talking about the 1971 Marine Reserves Act and how we do need to renew and refresh our approach to marine reserves. I guess we were probably an early adopter and now what we find is that there is a need to actually improve and modernise our approach to this and I fully endorse that sentiment.My first connection with a marine reserve in New Zealand was the Goat Island reserve in the area of Leigh. I was once when I was very young working as a reporter for theRodney andWaitemata Timesin that part of the world and it was certainly a huge benefit for that area to have that marine reserve. I remember that being one of my earliest experiences of actually snorkelling and being involved in close contact in a marine reserve situation and I can certainly recommend it to any New Zealander who has not had that experience yet.Without any further ado I would like to support this bill and continue on the good work that Labour started with regard to marine reserves. Thank you.SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): What a privilege it is to speak in support of this Subantarctic Islands Marine Reserves Bill. I am very pleased that it has broad support across the House. Of course it creates these new marine reserves around three Subantarctic Islands.The bill as other contributors to this debate have already noted extends the protection that is already in place for the land of the islands but not the waters around the islands. So this bill is a good thing and it continues the very proud tradition of National Governments in support of our environment and our marine reserves. This bill is just another step along that proud history and that proud tradition.There are real benefits for all New Zealanders in terms of tourism and scientific research and it is very likely that even through the promotion of sustainable fisheries our export opportunities will increase. I am pleased to note that the Minister of Conservation the Hon Kate Wilkinson has stated that she plans to introduce a new marine reserves bill into this House next year. I think that will be very good because it fulfils part of this National Government’s 2011 conservation manifesto. It is timely therefore to remember that it was in fact a National Government back in 1971 that passed the original Marine Reserves Act. I will be looking forward to participating in the debate when the new bill is introduced next year.One of the interesting things that I note from this piece of legislation is that due to the islands’ remote nature the legislation is going to provide for every officer in command of a New Zealand Defence Force vessel or aircraft to be deemed a ranger under the terms of the Act. I think given the remoteness of the islands that is a terrific thing. I commend this bill to the House.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The question is that the motion—Eugenie Sage: Mr Speaker—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I call the honourable member Eugenie Sage.EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Thank you Mr Speaker.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I will ring the bell with 1 minute to go.EUGENIE SAGE: Thank you. I am pleased to take a short call on the Subantarctic Islands Marine Reserves Bill which the Green Party will be supporting. Certainly the heavy seas and the strong winds that Wellington has been experiencing this morning give an insight into the conditions that prevail on these islands though I suspect that the wind-chill factor there is likely to be much higher. I have never had the privilege of visiting the Subantarctic Islands but would certainly welcome the suggestion of the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee Nicky Wagner that we go down to the Antipodes Islands Bounty Islands or Campbell Island groups. They are some of our wildest and most remote places and they are some of our least modified and most natural environments remaining in New Zealand. Certainly they are a nirvana for nature photographers. They have got dramatic sea cliffs and luxuriant mega-herbs and then you get species like the albatross nesting amongst the tussock. It was certainly a major achievement in 2001 to 2005 when the Department of Conservation undertook the largest rat eradication project in the world and cleared Campbell Island of rats. There has been a major improvement in the health of the flora since then.It was the universal value of the Subantarctic Islands—the Antipodes Islands Bounty Islands Campbell Island and Auckland Islands—that was recognised when they were listed for World Heritage status in 1998. That listing included all of the territorial seas around the islands but it is only the territorial seas of the Auckland Islands that have been protected since 2003. So this bill is very welcome because it is an initiative to put in place our World Heritage obligations to protect the territorial seas around three others of the islands. It is certainly a big improvement on the lack of protection around those other groups the Antipodes Islands the Bounty Islands and Campbell Island.Certainly in terms of the Antipodes Islands all of the 12 nautical mile territorial sea would be protected as a reserve and that is an excellent result for conservation. But around the Bounty Islands only 58 percent of the territorial sea will be protected though there will certainly be initiatives under the Fisheries Act to prohibit Danish seine fishing. Around Campbell Island it is only around 39 percent of the territorial waters and as Gareth Hughes noted we are disappointed that that crab fishery is to be allowed given that it is not even in existence yet. That is a shortcoming in the bill.I would just like to talk about the collaborative process that resulted in the recommendations to the Government. It was out of the Subantarctic Islands Marine Protection Planning Forum which had representation from all of the stakeholders—commercial fishers environmental interests and others—and the conservation interests on that stakeholder group certainly sought to have a much larger area protected. As a member of the select committee I look forward to their submissions making the case that the boundaries of the reserves that will be established in this bill should be extended.But the Government has really dropped the ball on marine protection apart from this initiative. The Subantarctic forum was established under the former Government and we had the Marine Protected Areas Policy which was a joint initiative between the Ministry of Fisheries and the Department of Conservation in 2006. That was supposed to govern these collaborative forums set up around the country and the only ones wehave seen have been the Subantarctic one and the West Coast one. Having been a member of the West Coast Marine Protection Forum I know that these forums are an excellent initiative to get away from the hostility that you get and the attacks on reserve proposals that proceed on a one-off basis. Getting all the stakeholders around the table means that you can have a good discussion. Yet there have been no new collaborative forums established subsequent to the West Coast and the Subantarctic ones. That is really disappointing. We keep hearing that a new marine reserves bill will come in next year. That is definitely needed but we keep hearing “next year” without the bill being introduced.Certainly the Green Party supports this bill. It is a very valuable initiative in marine conservation but we need more comprehensive initiatives to protect representative areas across our territorial sea and in the exclusive economic zone. Thank you.Bill read a first time.Billreferred to the Local Government and Environment Committee.The House adjourned at 12.58 p.m. (Wednesday)