Volume 623 Week 80 - Thursday 17 February 2005 
Volume 623 Week 80 - Thursday 17 February 2005 
[Volume:623;Page:18737] 
Thursday 17 February 2005 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Australia—Treasurer of the Commonwealth 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that the Hon Peter Costello Treasurer of the Commonwealth of Australia is within the precincts of this Chamber. I am sure that members would wish that he be welcomed and accorded a seat on the left of the Chair. 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week the House will go into a 1-week adjournment. When the House resumes on Tuesday 1 March priority will be given to the Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill. Wednesday is a members’ day and it is anticipated that on Thursday the House will be considering the election of a new Speaker. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I thank the Leader of the House for that indication of where things are heading. If I may I will refer to some difficulties the House got itself into over the last couple of evenings relating to the Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill. I want to make it clear that the bill is unique insomuch as it is one of the first to have an extensive preamble printed in both English and te reo Maori. Certainly members on the Opposition side of the House think that in these types of bills that is a good and an appropriate thing. I wonder whether the Leader of the House could give us an indication that some of the difficulties that were experienced through the desire to have some translations and indeed interpretations which was impinged upon by current Standing Orders may be subject to discussion at the next Business Committee meeting in order that some of those things can be put aside the bill can be allowed to progress at a reasonable pace and Ngati Awa representatives to be accommodated in their desire to be in the Chamber for the bill’s third reading. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I am happy to give an assurance that we can discuss those matters at the Business Committee. The member will also receive very soon—if he has not received it already—some additional information that I think will help in terms of the return to the Committee stage of the bill. With regard to the presence of Ngati Awa I can tell members that the third reading date has already been set subject to later matters and I simply urge members to get on with the proceedings. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: This is a business statement. I am prepared to let the Rt Hon Winston Peters have a word but that is it. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I want to ask Dr Cullen whether he is able to give us an idea as to progress on the Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill. I am sure that the august body called the Law Society would like to know where we are at with regard to that legislation. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Before we get to that point I will no doubt have further discussions with the Minister of Justice and the incoming Attorney-General. I am hopeful that we will make some rapid progress on the Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill once we have completed the Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill and one or two other matters that have to be done during the next session of Parliament. I am also hopeful that we will not take too long over the Committee stage of that bill. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It relates to the matters dealt with last night but is a different point of order from those of last night. I am very hopeful that we may have the benefit of your considered views on the matter and this I believe is the last day on which we can be sure of having those. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: It is not? Well OK. Certainly I hope that we would have— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: A few more questions to ask; two more sleeps! 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: Thank you! The point of order arose out of the circumstance in which Supplementary Order Paper 327 was tabled to introduce a new text in Maori into the bill. There was some discussion about how that text should be translated and where it fitted in the English text. But in the course of the point of order it became clear that the official interpreter was not going to be called upon to give that translation. The position we find ourselves in is that it appears that there may have been a significant difference between the two texts that were put forward by the Minister as being equivalent. The Minister had advised the House that the two texts were proper translations and he had said that that had been confirmed by the Maori Language Commission. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Chairperson gave rulings last night and I do not review the rulings of other presiding officers. But I was briefed on this matter and if the member would like to approach me or send me something in writing I will be happy to consider it. I do not want to have any further comment on this matter. We have the proceedings of the House to get on with. That is not a matter for a point of order. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: Mr Speaker I say that it is a point of order. It is an important point for this House to have an authoritative assurance that the two texts are the same. Whether that is a debating matter or whether it is something that requires as was indicated a decision of the Business Committee and the Standing Orders Committee we need a Speaker’s ruling. Having consulted Mr McGee we are in a position whereby the question of whether the two texts are the same appears to be treated as a debating matter. This country has suffered enough from having texts purporting to be one law that have two very different meanings. I ask that you consider the effect of the ruling that was given last night against the ruling that could not be given last night on the matter of the role of the interpreter. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: This matter is still before the Committee of the whole House and of course it is the Committee’s duty to deal with the bill. But I will consider the matters the member has raised. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I hope that when you are considering that matter you will also take into consideration the situation in which the House actually finds itself. We have the Government introducing a bill that is in Maori. The Government then produces a translation that is demonstrably false. Even non-Maori speakers know that because the Maori words that are in the English text are not contained in the Maori text. So it cannot be right. We also know that when the courts come to interpret the legislation it will not be the English translation that they look at; the Maori text will be the law of the land. So we have a situation whereby possibly 10 MPs know what is being passed and the other 110 of us are being misled. I think that requires some action from the Speaker. I would say that a false translation must be a breach of privilege and a very serious one. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I note that I brought these matters up at the time when the Leader of the House gave the business statement to the House. I suggested that the issue needed to be the subject of quite an important decision by the House Business Committee. Subsequent to that I have realised that we are in a very interesting position because the next meeting of that committee will be the last that you attend as Speaker. Also the Business Committee does not meet until 4.30 on the Tuesday when the House will be expected according to the business statement to have begun consideration of that bill. This is not a minor matter. What a bill should do is clearly state the Government’s intention. This bill does not clearly signal in all cases on all matters what the Government wants. That is the point Mr Prebble makes. I wonder whether it may be possible for the Leader of the House to give us an undertaking that the bill will not come back to the House until the Business Committee has met and has been able to consider further the matters that have been raised through various points of order since last Tuesday evening. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 It may be helpful if I reiterate what I said previously which is that further material will be coming to members well before Tuesday week. If the member still has issues at that point—and I do not think he will by that stage—then those matters will definitely be raised at the time when we enter into the Committee stage. But they cannot be discussed now because that material is not yet available to members. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is the job of the Committee of the whole House to debate these matters. The two texts are part of the bill; one is not a translation of the other. The staff of the Office of the Clerk do not give assurances about the text of bills. The interpreter is a member of staff not a witness before a committee. But I do take seriously the point raised by the Hon Richard Prebble and I will examine the transcripts and look at this whole issue. 
Questions to Ministers 
Tertiary Students—Allowances and Loans 
1. Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Is he comfortable with the notion that those students who miss out on allowances must get a job or take out a student loan as he appeared to state in the House last week? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Most families with a parental income of over $56000 are prepared to give their children some support. If they are not I am comfortable with those students accessing the very generous student loan scheme or undertaking some part-time or holiday work. The Government is progressively improving student loan and allowance rules and the average fees for tertiary students are dropping. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Does the Minister’s comfort extend to the fact that students are now lining up to become guinea pigs for clinical drug trials as a way of earning money to fund their studies and does he concede that students might be going to such lengths to avoid taking out a student loan because the prospect of debt is far more frightening than the side effects of experimental prescription drugs? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The evidence is that the length of repayment times has dropped substantially under this Government. If one looks at the survey that the University Students Association did one will see that it shows a growing satisfaction. Sixty-two percent of students—up from 15 percent—now say that the Government’s policies are overall fair to them. 
Helen Duncan 
: How much would it cost to give all students a universal allowance? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I am advised that it would cost around $3.35 billion over 4 years to introduce a universal allowance. I am not convinced that that level of spending would increase participation improve quality or in fact help the people most in need. I would rather spend extra money where it can make the biggest difference. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Is the Minister aware that the average student now works 13 hours per week during term time and does he agree with this comment made by the Prime Minister: “If one can avoid working part time through the year it is desirable because you really need time to put into your course.”? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I am aware of the New Zealand University Students Association survey which mentions a figure of 13 hours a week. I am not aware that that is a fact. 
Bernie Ogilvy 
: Is the Minister at all concerned about the 6200 students who are missing out on an allowance this year because they have worked and on top of that about another 450 who are missing out because they happen to be married because they collectively will take out student loans of about $10000 each which adds up to $66 million excluding interest; and does he accept responsibility for this politically correct economic imprisonment programme that he has allowed to take place? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I will leave aside the last part of that question. I think it is important to know that no student misses out because they are married. Students miss out because of their families’ financial circumstances. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Does the Minister believe that the parents of students who are so disqualified will be ever so grateful that the system is now consistent with human rights legislation when discrimination actually remains due to the fact that students under the age of 25 who are married are considered to be dependent on their parents for the purposes of student allowances but if they are on the dole they are not considered to be dependent? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: There is discrimination in this area. It is on the basis of a family’s financial circumstances and I think that is proper. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Was the student loan scheme a part of any confidence and supply negotiation between the Government and United Future after the last election; if so what was the outcome of that negotiation? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I do not have that on the top of my head. 
Bernie Ogilvy 
: Will the Minister be recommending to the Minister for Social Development and Employment that those under 25 years of age on benefits should be means tested based on their parents’ income in light of his statement yesterday that it is fair to consider students under 25 to be financially dependent on their parents; if not why not? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: As I look down the front row of the House I seem to be getting different reactions from the Minister of Finance and the Minister for Social Development and Employment. I will not be getting in the middle of that one. 
National Certificate of Educational Achievement—Scholarship Examination 
2.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Does he stand by his statement issued yesterday regarding the scholarship issue that: “On the evening of January 25 I was shown the table that reveals the variability between subjects for the first time.”; if not why not? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Yes. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why then did the Minister tell the House something quite different yesterday when I asked him: “how much did he know about the scholarship results when he issued that press release?” and he said: “I knew there were eight who had three outstanding scholarships when the expectation was that there should have been 50.” and is that not misleading the House by his own words? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The press release was issued on 26 January not 25 January. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Does he find it acceptable that the chief executive officer of New Zealand Qualifications Authority Karen Van Rooyen appointed under his stewardship admits that collated scholarship results were sent to the Ministers’ offices on 17 January without a red alert yet 1 month later she is still not able to say why this oversight which has created considerable embarrassment for the Government in fact occurred? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think there are two errors there. One is the sending without an alert and the second is the not opening of an email. One is her responsibility and one is my office’s and therefore mine. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that yesterday when asked: “how much did he know about the scholarship results” when he issued the press release of 26 January he said: “I knew there were eight who had three outstanding scholarships when the expectation was that there should have been 50.” and then he left the House and made a different statement to the public saying that he had the scholarship results the night before he issued the press release? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: That was made clear to the House yesterday by both the Prime Minister and myself. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister tell us when he made it clear to the House and where on the record of this House did he tell us that he saw the scholarship results before he issued his thoroughly misleading press release? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I did not release a thoroughly misleading press release. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member asked a question. Could the member just repeat the question? 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister tell us where on the official record of this House of Parliament he told Parliament that he had the full results of the New Zealand Scholarship examination including the pass rates the night before he issued a press release which stated only that the problem was that a few people— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I asked the member to ask the original question again. 
Hon Bill English 
: I will ask the original question again. Where on the record of this House did the Minister tell the House that he had the scholarship pass rates on 25 January the day before he issued his thoroughly misleading press release on 26 January? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will allow the question except the words “thoroughly misleading” because that of course is a matter of opinion inside the question. The Minister may respond without mentioning that point. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think it was obvious to every person in the House other than Mr English yesterday. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In the previous question the Minister said he had told the House that he had the scholarship pass rates on the evening of 25 January. I then asked him where on the record of the House he had done that. He has not answered that question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister is not responsible for the record. If there is a point that is misleading then of course the member can take another step in writing to me. 
Hon Bill English 
: No I am not going to play that game. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not want comments like that shouted at me in the second person. The member will withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Bill English 
: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Clearly the Minister has devised a tactic to use up supplementary answers. The facts of the matter are quite clear. He answered a question yesterday with a specific answer as if he did not know particular information. Then he went out of the House and issued a public statement saying he did know the information. It is pretty open and shut. Now he is using up supplementary answers by implying that somehow the information he made in the public statement had been given in the House. The House has a record of its proceedings. It is certainly my contention that he never said that in the House. It is not in the  
Hansard.  
It is not on the record. If you allow him not to answer the questions you are forcing me to use up supplementary questions in a way that means he can dodge the issue. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Speaking to the point of order Mr Speaker I am quite willing to go and find the  
Hansard. 
 It is certainly my impression that between the Prime Minister and I yesterday in the House we did make it clear—and it caused some uproar in the House—that I had known the day before and I had chosen to go ahead. 
Hon Bill English 
: If the Minister according to his statement yesterday outside the House did know about the scholarship pass rates why did he the next day issue a press release to the New Zealand public that said that scholarship awards “are to be enhanced to include more students. These brand new and substantial cash awards are part of the Labour-led Government’s commitment to … rewarding education excellence … The extension of New Zealand Scholarship awards will increase the monetary value … Provisional results indicate that some students did exceptionally well … but didn’t necessarily sit three subjects.” and does he not agree that that is a totally deceptive impression of the problems he knew about when he issued that press release? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: There was a group as I said yesterday in the House of very bright students who had suffered an injustice for whom Cabinet had established an entitlement. I thought it was appropriate that they knew straight away because they were making final university decisions at the time. These decisions have an enormous effect on their future and I have yet to hear one person— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I take a point of order because it is quite clear where Mr Mallard was about to go with his answer. You have ruled out the sorts of add-on bits that put a bit of political flavour into these things from the Hon Bill English— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Not entirely. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: You actually stood on your feet and said that it was inappropriate for Mr English— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: What is the point of order? 
Gerry Brownlee 
: The point of order is that I hope you will apply equally the rulings of the House to Mr Mallard. I express at this time our concern that Mr Mallard was able to almost put words in your mouth when he indicated before that he was not really prepared to answer a question on the basis that he did not feel he had responsibility for it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Of course what the member is saying is hypothetical because he has not said anything yet. I sincerely hope he is not going to. But the Minister is about to finish his answer. He will finish it but within the Standing Orders. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: As I said yesterday in the House I want to make it clear that on the evening of the Cabinet meeting that made the decisions as to the extension I received a piece of paper. The next day I discovered for the first time that unlike levels 1 2 and 3 the scholarship standards had not been subject to inter-subject moderation. I told the House yesterday that I found out the night after the Cabinet meeting. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does the Minister believe that the press release he made on 26 January extending the scholarship awards amounted to an accurate representation of the shambles of the scholarship results and does he believe he answered the question correctly when I asked him yesterday how much he knew about the scholarship results when he issued that press release and in his answer he did not refer at all to pass rates or variability? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I have two points. First what I said accurately reflected the Cabinet decision made on the 25th. Second I made it clear to the House yesterday that I had been briefed on the night of the 25th as to those other matters. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Can the Minister explain how it is that when he was questioned yesterday about the Cabinet paper creating scholarships he read out paragraph 28 from that Cabinet paper or certainly led the House to believe that that was what he was reading out when that Cabinet paper CAB(98)M38/13 has no paragraph 29—paragraphs are labelled alphabetically as usual—and certainly has no statement with the wording that he read out? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I seek the leave of the House to table a paper reference CAB(98)M38/13 that has paragraph 29 that the member says does not exist. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does the Minister believe that it is credible to tell this House that the following series of events occurred without him knowing what was happening: on Friday 14 January the New Zealand Qualifications Authority provided provisional scholarship results; on the weekend of 15-16 January he rang the Prime Minister to talk about the overall pass rates—in her words “the overall pass rates”—on Monday the 17th his office was emailed again; on January 18th the chief executive of the New Zealand Qualifications Authority initiated an officials working-group that then discussed the scholarship results for a week while a Cabinet paper was prepared; and through that whole time no one was aware of the variability and pass rates in scholarship? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The assurance I give this House is that no Minister was aware. 
Dail Jones 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. When will the Minister table that Cabinet paper? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: He has until 6 p.m. That is covered under the rules of the House. 
Dail Jones 
: He had it with him just now. Why does he not table it so we can check it during question time? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: These are the Speakers’ rulings and the Standing Orders. I do not write them; I apply them. 
Dail Jones 
: So he has given us the wrong impression then? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am sorry. I apply the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings and the member should know that. 
Economy—Indicators 
3.  
CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What positive indicators has he received on the state of the New Zealand economy? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Many and more to come. We have had economic growth above the OECD average for every year since this Government was elected; the lowest unemployment rate in the OECD; the second-highest percentage increase of new listings of any stock exchange in the world in the last year; we have seen increased business investment; and we have seen reduced numbers of people on social welfare benefits. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: Has the Minister received any negative reports on the state of the New Zealand economy? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Mainly from people on the other side of the House. Notably Dr Brash told Australians that he thinks New Zealand risks becoming just another Pacific Island State unable to survive as a viable society. This does not seem to be the best way to persuade Australians of the benefits of a single economic market. 
John Key 
: Has the Minister held talks with the Australian Treasurer Peter Costello; if not when he does talk to him will he lament the progressive approach Mr Costello has taken to growing the Australian economy by championing tax cuts or is this Minister just too ashamed to put up his own dismal record in this area? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The member puts me in a very difficult position. To have to say very quietly in front of the Australian Treasurer that we have been growing faster than Australia over the last 2 years looks like bad neighbourly relations. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why did the Minister not mention the looming balance of payments crisis in this country; the fact that the forecasts show that on the track he is taking by 2009 we will have slid further in terms of per capita incomes; the fact that we are 36th in the world in respect of per capita incomes; and lastly his having done more damage to this country since 1999 in terms of growth rates than was ever the case— 
Hon Member 
: Ha! 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: It is a fact actually sunshine! That member should look at the figures; they are all there for that member to see. The Minister inherited a higher-growing economy and it has been going down ever since. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: If a bad record is a higher rate of growth every year than the OECD average I am happy to stand on my record. 
Rod Donald 
: When the Minister said yesterday that he was not happy with the current account deficit rising to the level it is at what level of deficit and at what level of net foreign debt will he concede that we have a crisis on our hands given that for the year ended September the current account deficit stood at $8.2 billion or 5.8 percent of GDP and the net foreign debt stood at $118.2 billion or 82 percent of GDP? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: That last figure is actually somewhat lower than it was a few years ago. New Zealand’s national debt as a percentage of GDP has been falling on average for a number of years now. I now go back to the technical point: in a country with a freely floating exchange rate it no longer makes sense to talk of a balance of payments crisis because the Government is not attempting to defend a fixed exchange rate. 
Peter Brown 
: Will the Minister explain why if the economy is so buoyant and everything is so rosy as he has just outlined to the House it was necessary to pass legislation to impose a 5.6c petrol tax on motorists when in fact he already thieves from the average motorist 18.475c a litre? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will stand withdraw and apologise for that last comment. 
Peter Brown 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The substance of the member’s question was asked. The Minister can now reply. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: We have just had a question about the current account problems that the country faces—in common I might say with our near neighbours. To suggest that therefore the Government should divert out of the Crown account and into the land transport account a large sum of money without increasing revenue is to suggest that we loosen fiscal policy and thereby place further pressure upon the current account deficit. 
Question No. 2 to Minister 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 After a brief discussion with Brian Donnelly I seek to correct the name of the paper to SOC98M18/1. It had three references and I gave the wrong one. It is a Cabinet committee paper. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There is an issue here to do with question No. 2. I asked the Minister of Education about what was on the record of the House that he had said about his knowledge of scholarship rates. I have checked what he actually said. The member’s claim about what he said to the House turns out not to be correct—at least on the existing record of the House. The response he made in the House yesterday to my question was: “At no stage did I cover it up. I want to make it clear that on the evening of the Cabinet meeting that made the decisions as to the extension I was briefed and I received a piece of paper.” His public statement later in the day is much clearer and says: “On the evening of January 25 I was shown the table that reveals the variability between subjects for the first time.” In his statement to the House he actually said it was the next day the 26th that he discovered that. So Mr Speaker I would be interested in your guidance on when we can get a certified record of the proceedings yesterday to check whether the Minister correctly represented what he said because it was a critical point in the debate going on. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is on the website at 5.30 p.m. on the particular day. [ 
Interruption 
] I beg your pardon! I have just been advised that it is on the website at 5.30 p.m. I have to accept the advice I was just given. An uncorrected version is on the website at 5.30 p.m. Then members are sent their  
Hansard 
 
they can change it and then there is a corrected version. This is debating material; it is the member’s opinion about it only. I cannot actually rule on that. The member has made his point and he has been able to make it quite fully but that is not something that I can specifically rule on. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know that this is an exceptionally unusual thing to do but it might help the House if I shared with it the Prime Minister’s  
Hansard 
 for question No. 1 yesterday which makes it—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: This is a point of order. That member raises far too many points of order and a lot of them are not points of order. This is actually a point of order. Carry on Mr Mallard. There will be no interjections or people will leave the Chamber. I have had enough. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The response to the first supplementary question of the day yesterday from the Rt Hon Winston Peters makes it absolutely clear that the variability question the sheet in question was sent to my office on the 17th and I looked at it after the Cabinet meeting. That was made clear well before Mr English’s question. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
: 
 This is an important issue to do with the nature of question time because my questions to the Minister were about the veracity of his statements—what he had told the House in answer to my questions—not what the Prime Minister had said in answer to someone else’s questions. That has nothing to do with this particular issue. It is simply not good enough for a member to quote someone else’s  
Hansard 
 and represent it as things he said in response to my question. Trevor Mallard has represented what the Prime Minister said as his correct answer to my question when of course his answer was incorrect. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Firstly yet again this is not a point of order; it is a matter for debate. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have warned you Mr Brownlee. This is your final warning. Firstly you interjected in the second person and secondly you were talking during a point of order. Your points of order are always heard in silence; so will Dr Cullen’s points of order be. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: If a member cannot hear the answer to one question at the start of the day and translate that into the meaning of another answer later in the day it seems a bit rich to come back and raise a point of order about it the next day. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I cannot resolve disputes on whether an answer is correct. Is Mr Mallard seeking leave to table that document? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Yes I am. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Pursuant to the explanation which I appreciate from the Minister about getting clear the papers the House gave leave for the Minister to table Cabinet paper No. (98)M38/13 which is obviously not the paper that he has been referring to both yesterday and today. He has then explained. Does he need to seek leave again from the House to table the Cabinet paper? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: He did and he got it. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
111 System—Christchurch Incident 
4.  
RON MARK (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: Did he ascertain from the police review into Christchurch 111 calls why a Christchurch dispatcher alleged he or she could not contact three traffic units to send to an abduction and an assault on 4 July because they were logged “out of service” and not listening to their radios? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 The police have investigated all the allegations made by the member and after listening to the tapes and talking to the staff involved the police found that the claims made by Ron Mark were “factually incorrect”. I prefer to believe the police. 
Ron Mark 
: Does the Minister agree that this press release issued by police headquarters spin doctors yesterday is not worth the paper it is written on given that the people involved were not even interviewed as part of the Minister’s so-called review of the incident? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: It is a bit hard to answer that when I cannot see the paper he is referring to but he just waves it around. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I saw a bit of paper that he fluttered. I did not see exactly what it was. 
Ron Mark 
: My wording was quite specific— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I want to know what the reference is. I do not want the wording of the question. 
Ron Mark 
: It is the press released issued by police headquarters yesterday which I actually showed to him and which he just quoted from. He should answer the question. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I want to say the police have listened to the tapes talked to staff members and have come to the conclusion that the member is factually incorrect. I still believe the police. 
Georgina Beyer 
: What advice has he had about the outcome of the police investigation? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: The review found that those claims were factually incorrect. Both of the original incidents were attended in a timely and professional manner. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why did he just tell the House that he had not seen the press statement when clearly he had and why did he not answer the question as to why such a police press statement would have been put out with the police having failed to investigate the matter in person with the people who would know what had gone on? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Some of the people who are on that accusations list made by Mr Mark have not been identified because he crossed their names out. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I distinctly recall asking the Minister as to why he claimed not to have seen a press statement that he was quoting from. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: If you check the  
Hansard 
 later you will find that the Minister did not actually say that at all. He was simply asking for further information about which piece of paper it was that the member was waving around. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is precisely the indication that I had. I saw the member wave a piece of paper around and the member agrees with me. I think Mr Hawkins did not know what that particular piece of paper was. The member then identified it and that is the substance of the issue of concern. The Minister certainly addressed that question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With the greatest of respect to you and to Dr Cullen Mr Mark clearly set out that he was talking about a press statement that was put out yesterday and that appeared in this morning’s  
Dominion Post 
. It was as clear as daylight. We all know what he was talking about and so does he. To say now that it lacked description because Mr Ron Mark was waving it around when he verbally mentioned what it was is just utter nonsense. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No it is not. I listened to the whole exchange. I noticed quite a number of members of Parliament on both sides of the House who agreed with what I had actually said. As far as I am concerned the piece of paper could have been any one of a number of press releases. It was not identified further than being a press release. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is what my colleague said: “Does the Minister agree that this press release issued by police headquarters spin doctors yesterday …”. Now what does Dr Cullen take from that? That sort of obfuscation and doubletalk will not do in Parliament any more. My colleague was as clear as daylight. Those were his words and he waved the press statement. The Minister knew when he answered the question what was being asked of him. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I think that the member should remind himself what the point of order he raised was. He claimed that the Minister said he had not seen the statement. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: He did. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Well that is not what the Minister said and for the member’s information more than one police press statement was issued yesterday. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: What explanation does the Minister have for the contradiction between his answer in the House today that the police have not been able to interview the parties involved because Mr Ron Mark had blanked out the details and his statement in the House on the afternoon of 8 February when he said he had been advised that despite Mr Mark having blanked out the identifying information the police quickly identified the sources being referred to? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: The allegations made by Mr Ron Mark have been investigated as far as the police can go. They have determined that the information he gave was incorrect. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister has not answered my question. I am seeking an explanation as to how he can say to the House that the police have not interviewed all those involved because Mr Mark blanked out their names when he had said on 8 February that the police had told him they were able to quickly identify the sources being referred to. It will be a very simple explanation if there is one. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Again the story is changing. What the member asked in his original question—quite rightly—was how the Minister reconciled the fact that on 8 February he said he was advised by the police that certain things had happened with his statement today. If the member cares to think about it the likely explanation is that the police advice originally was incorrect. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It would be very apparent to you and to everybody else who is halfway to being reasonable that that excuse was open for the Minister to make. That was hardly a reply to a point of order by Dr Cullen. If that was correct and if it were true then the Minister could have said that but he did not. He avoided answering the question at all. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: The Minister did not answer my question. It might have been that Dr Cullen came to his rescue again but the Minister did not answer my question and you should seek an answer from him. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: The point I was making was that the member is being somewhat tricky in changing the story in terms of what the Minister’s answer was. In his point of order he claimed the Minister had said that the police had identified it. As the member correctly said in his question the Minister said that he had been advised by the police that they had identified the people. There is a very important difference between those two. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. I listened carefully to the exchange and I thought the Minister did address the question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It will be apparent to all of us who have ever been Ministers that the Minister’s advice came from the police on not one occasion but both occasions—in respect of his answer today and of that of 8 February as well. Now surely he should be required to answer the question as to how he or his ministry reconciled those two statements which are diametrically opposed to each other. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thought that the Minister did address the question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If he did could you please tell the House and the whole country what his answer is in relation to the reconciliation of two diametrically opposite statements? On the one hand he said that the police got to the informants though their names may have been blacked out; on the other hand today he said they could not approach those witnesses because their names had been blacked out by Ron Mark when the statement was released. What is the correct statement or the correct state of affairs here? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: All I can say is that that was not exactly as stated; there were other comments made too. But as far as I was concerned the Minister addressed the question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why did the Minister just tell the House that the police were not able to go beyond the press statement and documents released by Ron Mark because certain items had been blacked out thereby not giving the police a chance to find out what personnel they should investigate; and how does he reconcile that with the statement of 8 February that despite Ron Mark blacking the names out the police got to those people—how does he reconcile those two statements? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: What was identified very clearly was what the event was which was not clear when the member originally had the information before the House. 
Ron Mark 
: Can the Minister then explain why it is that on 4 July 2004 at the time that the incident occurred—when the staff involved in the incident and senior traffic officers were discussing it both in writing and verbally—the assurances and explanations that the communications staff received at that time by email bore no resemblance to the miraculous revelations that we are now getting out of police headquarters; is this simply a whitewash a cover-up or a scam? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister can answer one of those questions. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I still prefer to believe the police rather than that member. 
Ron Mark 
: How if the Minister is so adamant that traffic cars attend emergencies does he explain the content of an internal police memo I have from a different region which tells traffic police not to attend general-duties jobs because they are down on traffic-duty hours and manpower and that if they are asked to attend they must seek their traffic supervisor’s permission first? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: The Commissioner of Police has told all his staff that when on duty they must be prepared to attend priority one calls and that has been repeated in recent days to them. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: What explanation is there for the contradiction between the Minister’s statement in the House just now—that the police advised him that despite the information being blacked out it was in fact the events they were able to determine—and his statement of 8 February that the police had advised him that despite the blacking out of identifying information they would be quickly able to identify the sources of that information which he denied can be interviewed? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: They were quickly able to identify who was in the operations room that night to answer the phone calls that came in. The first of those calls was responded to within 4 minutes and the second within 2 minutes. They listened to the tapes and came to that conclusion very very quickly. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Dr Cullen may like to intervene with regard to this point of order as well. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will please come to the point of order. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: My question asked for the explanation of the contradiction in the House caused when the Minister said he was advised by the police that they could identify the events—that is what he said not 4 minutes ago—whereas in the House on 8 February he said that the police could identify the sources. That is the reason why Mr Mark is querying the Minister’s original answer today. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I listened to the Minister’s reply and he certainly addressed that. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I hate to raise this but my colleague came to the House today because his reputation was on the line. A ministerial statement had gone out stating that he was wrong. He knows that the key sources were not interviewed by the police prior to the release of that fallacious press statement. He came here with one purpose: to ask the Minister why the sources had not been interviewed. 
We have had countless points of order and supplementary questions on this matter and the Minister has clearly not told the House the truth at all. There is a wide variance between what the Minister said on 8 February and what he has said today. His defence today was that the police could not interview the sources because Mr Mark had blacked out the names of the sources on the emails that he had released to the press. That is what he said by way of his first line of defence. We now know categorically from the Minister’s own statement that that is not the truth. We are now at the end of the substantive question and we are no further down the track with regard to getting an honest answer from the Minister. 
Again I ask that the Minister be asked to address the question of why the police did not interview the sources—which he said today was true—and why if that was the case the police put out a press statement when they had failed to interview the sources in the first place. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: From what I heard the Minister said that he did not agree with Mr Mark. Certainly if he had been casting any aspersion on Mr Mark’s character I would be the first to say that he had to withdraw it—I would certainly say that. But Mr Mark has a point of view and the Minister has a different point of view. That is what Parliament is all about. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. What Mr Hawkins said to Mr Mark was that he preferred to believe the police rather than the member. Are you now saying that that statement was within the bounds of appropriate language in the House—that effectively telling a member that one does not believe him is acceptable while calling him a liar is unacceptable? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Of course calling a member a liar is unacceptable but when the Minister said he did not accept what Mr Mark had said I took it that he was not casting aspersions on Mr Mark’s personal character. I hope that was the case and I will ask for the Minister’s assurance that it was. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: No. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is right; that is exactly what I took from what was said. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am just a little unclear about where we have got to. The Minister stood up and said “No.” but it was unclear what he was saying “No.” to. I would like to remind you that yesterday you required Mr English to withdraw and apologise for saying to Mr Mallard that he did not believe him. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If I required Mr English to do that just for saying that he did not believe Mr Mallard I certainly may have been in error. All I am saying now is that as far as I am concerned when a member says that another member is wrong he is entitled to do so—of course he is; he does not accept what the other member has said. If I thought that a member was saying that the other member had deliberately misled the House or anything like that it would be an entirely different matter and it has always been ruled on as such. 
Cyclones—Pacific February 2005 
5.  
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
 to the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade 
: What reports has he received on the extent of damage caused by cyclones Nancy and Olaf in the Pacific and what if anything has New Zealand been asked to do to assist? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
: 
 I am receiving regular reports. Fortunately these show that the damage to Samoa and the Cook Islands appears to be less substantial than was originally feared. We do however have a very significant concern about the well-being of the crews of it now seems four fishing boats in Samoan waters. One of these vessels has sunk and the other three were reported as being in distress after having encountered 190-kilometre-an-hour winds and 15-metre seas. A Royal New Zealand Air Force Orion is currently in the region leading a search and rescue mission. At the time I came into the House that mission had not yet detected any of the vessels. 
Martin Gallagher 
: Has New Zealand conveyed specific offers of assistance to both the Cook Islands and Samoa? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Yes. In addition to the search and rescue mission New Zealand has aircraft on stand-by and can in conjunction with our disaster relief partners France and Australia also provide technical support and relief supplies. As of midday I had received a message back from the Cook Islands to the effect that it did not need any immediate assistance. Later today I expect to receive a full assessment on Samoa and on whether we will be required to provide any assistance there. 
Te Wananga o Aotearoa—Funding 
6.  
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Did he or the then Associate Minister raise concerns in relation to Te Wananga o Aotearoa regarding financial accountability and whether the taxpayer was getting value for money with Cabinet in writing; if so on what date? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 We raised accountability issues generally about the wananga in October 2001 in relation to the settlement. It was of course the wananga that was the main driver of the managing growth policy in April 2003. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: What is the Minister’s view of the wananga’s Greenlight programme in literacy and numeracy which was developed by Cubans and sold to the wananga by Marcia Krawll the American fiancée of the wananga’s chief executive Dr Rongo Wetere for an extraordinary seven-figure sum? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: It is my understanding that the Greenlight project has not been properly academically assessed in the New Zealand context and I am therefore not prepared to give an opinion as to its value. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: Can the Minister tell the House what undertakings by Te Wananga o Aotearoa have resulted from the range of measures undertaken by Ministers and Government agencies that he outlined to the House yesterday? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I am aware of the blood pressure of the Leader of the House and therefore I will not go through a long list. But I will say that there was an action plan. It set out some improvements and at least some of them happened. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does the Minister agree that after the New Zealand Qualifications Authority’s bungling of the 2004 National Certificate of Educational Achievement scholarship its competence to have concluded the July 2004 audit of Te Wananga o Aotearoa—which said that all was well with the institution—must now be questionable; and will he establish a fully independent audit team so that taxpayers can be assured they are not simply the funders of a rip-off? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: There are a number of points in that question. But if we go back this issue really shows that one has to be very careful about letting Tories manage anything. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Would the Minister please give an answer that will not lead to points of order. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: There are clear management issues at the wananga and we will get on top of them. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister clearly does not want to answer the question he was asked. He gave a clever answer for a start which you picked him up on. His second answer completely ignored the question which went to the issue of whether he believes that the competence of the New Zealand Qualifications Authority to properly audit this institution can be believed and accepted by the public. It is a pretty straightforward question. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The final answer on this institution will not lie with the New Zealand Qualifications Authority. 
Judy Turner 
: Does the Minister have any concerns about the value for money that taxpayers get from Government spending on Te Wananga o Aotearoa in light of the fact that it receives $239 million to cater for 30000 students and the Hutt Valley District Health Board has a budget of $258 million—only $19 million more—to cater for the health needs of a population of 135000 and where does he think the money is better spent? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Members do not need the second leg of the double for me to indicate my concern with value for money there. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: In view of the Minister’s response that the programme has not yet been assessed can he tell the House why the Government has already paid out $4.5 million to the Greenlight programme based on 1521 students who are deemed to have completed this Greenlight course when in fact many students being credited with New Zealand Qualifications Authority unit standards for the course have advised the Tertiary Education Commission that they did not complete the units or that they had not been assessed for the units and furthermore that two of the four modules are not even written yet? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: It is my understanding that payments have not been made for the modules that have not been written. Obviously it is a modular course. It is done bit by bit and we do not pay out in advance for that. 
Bernie Ogilvy 
: Do the Minister’s concerns with the wananga extend beyond its financial accountability to the quality of the education that it offers; if so what other specific concerns can he express to the House? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think it is fair to say that I do have some concerns about the quality and qualifications of some of the people teaching at the wananga. I should say that some of the people do have some very good qualifications. It is interesting that a lot of young people and older people have gone through the institution and got jobs. Having said that as I indicated on the radio the organisation will not get special treatment as far as accountability and ethics are concerned because it is a wananga. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Will the Minister explain the Government’s liability for the $15.5 million taxpayer payment to the wananga that is based on the 5455 students who are now enrolled in the Greenlight programme when the wananga has engaged in a vigorous enrolment campaign to get bums on seats to rort the taxpayer with tertiary graduates wananga staff and even tutors enrolled in their own course? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: It is actually not that unusual for university staff to be enrolled in university courses. I would hope that the people enrolled in literacy courses though are not tutors. It might well be that there are cleaning staff or administrative staff for whom literacy courses are appropriate. We have seen in this House on occasion including from the member who just interjected real literacy problems. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will stand and withdraw that comment. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I withdraw. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Could the Minister indicate to the House at what point his concerns will actually turn into action given the fact that on his watch over half a billion dollars of taxpayers’ money has now been given to the wananga; and will he not consider the position of the real losers from this scam who are as I understand it the more than 40000 Maori and Pacific Island students who enrolled at this institution believing falsely that it was a university and who have received almost valueless courses but now owe over a hundred million dollars in student loans? Is he not concerned about those students? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I am very concerned about anyone who enrolled at this organisation thinking it was a university. There is no doubt that the advertising of the wananga in that matter is misleading. I should point out of course to the House that currently fewer than half of the students there according to my advice are in fact Maori. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I seek leave to table three documents. The first one is an email from the Crown’s representative on the wananga council to the chairman of that council. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: The second is a letter dated 2 February 2005 from the Tertiary Education Commission to Dr Rongo Wetere. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: The third is a correspondence confirming that previously qualified students wananga staff and tutors are indeed enrolled in the course that the Government is funding. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Students—Discrimination 
7.  
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Does he agree that the student support system discriminates against women Maori and people under 25; if not why not? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 The student support system does not discriminate against women or Maori; it does discriminate against people under 25 based on their parents’ income. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Is the Minister aware that 82 percent of Maori tertiary students are paying fees and taking out loans to gain a senior high school equivalent or certificate qualification which is free at secondary school while the number of Maori attending university has been static since 1998 and how is that equitable participation? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think following the last question the member will realise that of that very large group of Maori students doing level 1 2 and 3 qualifications many—in fact the majority of them—are at the wananga and are not charged fees. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Does the Minister agree with a report in the  
Dominion Post  
that women can expect to take twice as long as men to pay off their student loans—that is thousands of dollars in extra interest and adds around 20 percent to the overall cost of a degree; if so how is paying more for education on the basis of gender not discriminatory? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Two points: first the current figures that we have are that there is a difference of about 2 years between 9 and 11 years; but secondly I want to make it clear that I disagree with the ACT policy which involves criticism because it is free use of cheap money. 
Moana Mackey 
: When was the age of independence set at 25 years? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Following the promise to abolish student tuition fees “no ifs no buts no maybes” 1991 by Lockwood Smith. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: With regard to the Minister’s answer to my primary question where he accepted that there is discrimination on the basis of age how does he justify that what is the rational justification and can he point to any other legislation in which a 24-year-old is considered to be his or her parents’ financial responsibility? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I can certainly show him the custom and practice. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Has the Minister received any advice about a generation of students that enjoyed the benefits of post-war prosperity had a practically free tertiary education then when in power cut taxes implemented privatisation user-pays and the student loan scheme to pay for them and now wants its retirement paid for as well; how does he describe that as anything other than intergenerational theft? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Under this Government we have had some intergenerational equity with fees on average coming down loan conditions being improved and allowances being extended to a much wider group. 
Waitakere Hospital—Opening 
8.  
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What reports has she received about the reaction of Waitakere people to the opening of the new secondary hospital in Waitakere last Saturday? 
Dail Jones 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There was something in the question that was not there. Perhaps she could read the question again? There was no reference to the Waitakere people in the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is correct. The member will read the question again. 
Lynne Pillay 
: What reports has she received about the opening of the new secondary hospital in Waitakere last Saturday? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 People from the community told me they were very pleased indeed. Our decision in 2001 means that for the first time this important and rapidly growing community has its own secondary hospital fulfilling a dream that the community has nurtured for 40 years. Many people toured the hospital after the opening ceremony and took part in a day of community celebration and it was a similar reaction to that of people in Waikato Thames Wairarapa Tauranga Invercargill and other centres where this Government has initiated new or refurbished hospitals. I was very pleased to see National MP John Key at the opening and I know that he thoroughly enjoyed himself. It must have been a relief from the misery he faces in his caucus every week. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I had the fortune or the misfortune of being able to see the length of that ministerial answer because the Minister held the paper to the side. Now she made a number of statements. First of all she said that she knew John Key enjoyed himself. Now how could she know that? It is totally irrelevant and a total waste of time. Then she assumed something else about National’s caucus which probably is true but she should not be allowed to say it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is laughing at his own point of order. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Since this Government came into office what has happened to the phenomenon of local communities joining hands around their threatened hospital buildings? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: There is no longer any need for local communities to join hands. This Government is committed to rebuilding the hospital infrastructure of New Zealand from large communities to ones as small as Murchison. The Government has shown that commitment by its large investment in public hospital infrastructure the biggest investment we have seen in over a generation. Throughout the 1990s I have to tell members it was very common to see people joining hands around their beleaguered hospitals to try to save them from closure. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek the leave of the House to table the headlines in the  
Nelson Mail 
 of the community in Nelson holding hands to try to save their hospital. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that. Is there any objection? There is. 
Lynne Pillay 
: How does this Government’s investment in infrastructure compare with say the 1990s? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Over the last 5 years this Government has committed more than $1 billion to rebuilding and refurbishing public hospitals from the top of the North Island to the bottom of the South Island. This compares with the abysmal record of the National Government in the previous 8 years where it spent just over a hundred miserable dollars on hospital infrastructure. In 5 years this Government has allocated 10 times as much as National spent in 8 years and our record which I will show the House speaks for itself. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister can show a document like that. Members on that side of the House have done so too. I allowed it to be shown and then it cannot be shown again. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I seek leave to table this extremely good graph which shows the investment that this Government has put into hospital infrastructure. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that document being tabled? There is. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I can certainly speak for the National Party in saying to the Minister that if she can assure us that she coloured it in herself we will let her table it. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I no longer need to colour in my colouring book but suggest that the member keeps doing his. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Neither comment was a point of order as the members both know. 
111 System—Police Resources 
9.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay Of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: What specific additional resources has he secured for the 111 system since his press release endorsing the commissioner’s review of the system in October? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 The Commissioner of Police has made no specific request for additional resources. He is able to deploy existing resources as he sees fit. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Will the Minister take responsibility for any calamity that might occur because of his inaction before the review team reports? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Operational matters are the responsibility of the Commissioner of Police. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: What is the Minister’s attitude when he is unable to answer simple questions such as: “How do you reconcile today’s statement in the House with that on 8 February?”; what is his attitude when he cannot even do the normal fundamental basic jobs that a Minister of Police is required to do; and why does he not take the advice he gave to the Nelson police when he first became Minister when he said: “If you don’t like your job get another one.”? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: The very simple facts are that the police did an investigation and they found that Mr Mark’s allegations were not right and I accept that. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: If the police have all the resources they need as the Minister claimed yesterday why did it take three phone calls and 90 minutes before police responded to a young woman’s distressed 111 call in Wanganui—a young woman who was told on the first call that the police would be there quickly; half an hour later on the second call was told: “We’ll be right there.” and half an hour later again was still waiting for an officer to attend? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: That is why we are having a review. 
Ron Mark 
: Is it not a fact that the reasons this Government—by the Minister’s own admission now—has given no extra funding to deal with the emergency 111 system and why we are continuing to see even more disastrous reports of the failures of the system such as the one in the  
Dominion Post 
 this morning are that this Government has ring-fenced funding for staff around traffic that this Government has a policy that allows traffic police to ignore and not respond to dispatchers’ repeated calls and that this Government simply places a higher priority on ticketing ordinary normally law-abiding New Zealand citizens and raising revenue from our roads? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: No. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It will occur to you that this Minister has been constantly promising the questioner a review that is taking place to sort out the problem. He has said day in day out that that is why they were having a review. None of that circumvents the right of parliamentarians to know now what the facts are and to get political accountability from the Government. He has misused Parliament in that respect and he should be punished by members of Parliament being able to ask a further question. A Minister any Minister could answer every parliamentary question by saying: “We’re having a review. Therefore I cannot tell you.” and that is the tactic that that Minister has employed. If you allow him to get away with that then any old bum can be a Minister of Police. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the last comment of that point of order was unnecessary and I ask the member to withdraw it. It was a reflection on a member and I do not think we should have reflections on members. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Well I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I have not finished yet. I am ruling. Would the member please be seated. The last question that was asked by the member was not specific. I heard the answer. It gave a direct answer to the question. I thought the answer was “No.” and one cannot get any more direct than that. As far as I am concerned the Minister has addressed the question adequately. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My point is that I asked the Minister for the umpteenth time as to why he is unable to reconcile two diametrically opposite statements. He said: “That is why we are having a review.” None of that is relevant to the review. The review I assume is to do with whether there is a satisfactory response in terms of the resourcing of 111 calls. But our question is about something else. He had a question from Mr Ryall regarding the latest item in the  
Dominion Post 
 this morning about the response to a 111 call taking 91 minutes. We have got no further down the track from a Minister who on most occasions has sought to detour from the fundamental question by talking about a review he is shortly to hold. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Members have the right to ask questions. There is no guarantee from anything I have seen in the Standing Orders that they will be satisfied with the answers. That is the whole point about parliamentary debate in a democracy. 
Question No. 10 to Minister 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 Mr Speaker— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Has the member had the authority of the member to ask the question? 
RODNEY HIDE  
: 
 Yes. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member’s word will be absolutely accepted. The member did ring me this morning. 
Special Needs Students—Ongoing and Reviewable Resourcing Schemes 
10.  
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
 on behalf of  
TARIANA TURIA (Leader—Maori Party) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Education 
: Does the current Ongoing and Reviewable Resourcing Scheme funding meet the needs of special-needs students? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Associate Minister of Education) 
: 
 Generally yes. 
Rodney Hide 
: What comfort can the Minister give Miss Joanne Newlands whose severely developmentally delayed 9-year-old son Nathaniel used to receive 16 teacher-aide hours a week but this year has been twice turned down for any Ongoing and Reviewable Resourcing Scheme funding? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: In the 2004-05 year just under $438 million has been appropriated for special education. That is a significant increase over the almost $111 million of 1999. Notwithstanding that and despite such a significant commitment to special education I acknowledge that often particular cases of application need to be revisited. I am aware of the case concerned and I am also aware that one of the Christchurch members of Parliament is advocating on behalf of Nathaniel. I will undertake to investigate that case. 
Paul Adams 
: What financial support will he give to those young people with disabilities their families and school communities that have all benefited immensely from the Ongoing and Reviewable Resourcing Scheme for the first 4 years of schooling who have applied for continuation of the funding but have been denied that because the school does not have enough funds either through the special education grant or the operational grant and how will he help those families now? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: The amount of funding budgeted for those purposes was clearly finite and that is the reason for allocation systems such as those that exist. 
Rodney Hide 
: How can any New Zealander believe that this Government cares when Miss Joanne Newlands having failed to get any help from her Labour MP over 4 weeks borrowed the money to fly herself and her son Nathaniel to Wellington hoping to see Minister Marian Hobbs for just a few minutes but was denied that opportunity? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I cannot answer for my colleague or any colleague’s diary but I have already undertaken to have the case investigated. 
Lianne Dalziel 
: Can the Minister confirm that he has been approached by a Christchurch member of Parliament who has met with Joanne Newlands and has raised the case with him on her behalf. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Yes I can confirm that I have been approached by Ms Dalziel. 
Rodney Hide 
: I seek leave to table the letter that Miss Joanne Newlands wrote. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
National Certificate of Educational Achievement—Scholarship Examination 
11.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Education 
: Does he stand by his statement to the House on 3 February 2005 regarding scholarship results that: “I do not subscribe to the accusations he makes about … shonky exam results … I think that most New Zealanders and certainly most of the students involved in those examinations would want any consideration of the results to be done on the basis of full and timely information.”; if so what information did he have about scholarship results when he made that statement? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Associate Minister of Education) 
: 
 Yes. With regard to information about low scholarship results in certain subjects I indicated that to the member at that time when I said: “Clearly I have seen some such information but I have asked for a report and I believe the appropriate time to draw relevant conclusions is when I have received the report and considered it not before then.” In addition I issued a press release on 1 February—the first sitting day of the House this year—that I had received data in addition to public comment and that I had requested the full report I have just referred to. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why did the Minister make a series of press releases and public statements stating that he needed a report from the New Zealand Qualifications Authority about this matter when the Minister of Education had received such a report a week before and was he covering up—or had Trevor just not shared it with him because he was too junior? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member knows that he cannot refer to another member of the House in that way. He should have said “the Hon Trevor Mallard”. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: The report that I referred to was a report that gave the genesis to the Cabinet paper that led to the decision to grant the distinction awards not the information about the raw data. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Can the Minister confirm that it was his office that showed to me the contentious table report rather than vice versa and that it was his office that helped my office to find out what was around? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: That is my understanding of what transpired. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister now confirm that the Minister of Education’s office was so lazy so complacent and so uninterested that the Minister of Education needed the junior Minister’s office to tell him what was going on with regard to the scholarship exam and can he confirm that he must have brought those matters to the attention of the Minister of Education as early as 25 January—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I ask Mr English to please restate the question. I heard an interjection while he was asking his question. I do not know where the interjection came from. The member can repeat the question. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that the Minister of Education and his office did not find out about the scholarship results but his office advised them; if he did advise them on 25 January why is it that 2 weeks later on 8 February he was still making public statements as if he did not have a full report from the New Zealand Qualifications Authority; is that not a cover-up? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I can certainly confirm a collegial and an efficient working relationship between the two offices. There has been no cover-up involved in these matters. While we are talking about the accuracy of information I am pleased to respond to the issue that was raised yesterday in terms of the scientist who was unable to pass the chemistry unit standard. I inform the House that 55 percent of the candidates in that standard were able to pass it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That has nothing to do with the question that was asked. The Minister had answered the question in the first part of his answer. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister tell the thousands of young New Zealanders who sat the New Zealand Scholarship and the National Certificate of Educational Achievement why it is that after 3 weeks of bad publicity no Minister and no bureaucrat has apologised to them or taken any accountability for this debacle even though the Prime Minister said that someone would pay? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I am sure the member will understand that the processes that are in train will yield those responsibilities and accountabilities. Like him I find it unfortunate that such events have transpired. My focus is quite properly absolutely on looking forward to make sure that there is no repetition of such events. 
Traffic Law Enforcement—Non-discrimination Policy 
12.  
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: Are there any policy statements requiring the police to enforce traffic law without discrimination on the basis of race culture or religion; if not why not? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 Yes. 
Stephen Franks 
: What use for police identification purposes are driver’s licence photos with faces shrouded by burkas when Land Transport New Zealand has admitted in writing that Muslim women have been allowed to refuse to remove their burkas for their licence photos? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: The information I have is that such photos can be taken by arrangement where a female staff member is involved and the face is able to be seen. 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: What has the Minister done to reduce the risk of Mongrel Mob members certifying their feelings for their balaclavas so they can wear them for their licence photos as well as while they are on the job? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Clause 12 of the Land Transport (Drivers Licensing) Rule 1999 requires that when licence applicants are being photographed for a licence they must not wear sunglasses a hat any head coverings or anything else that may obscure the applicant’s face or prevent the photographic image from being a good likeness. 
Stephen Franks 
: Does the Minister deny the advice in writing from Mr Peter Kippenberger now of Land Transport New Zealand that: “The number of photo driver licences issued to applicants wearing burkas is very low.” and do I take it from his earlier answer that he says that is not happening? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: It is my understanding that Land Transport New Zealand previously the Land Transport Safety Authority does not collect that information. 
Kenneth Wang 
: Have I understood the Minister correctly that if I cover my face for a driver’s licence photograph it is OK provided I sign a declaration that I have a religious objection to being photographed; if so has the Minister ever heard the expression: “When in Rome do as the Romans do.”? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: No. 
Veterinarians Bill 
First Reading 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Associate Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 I move  
That the Veterinarians Bill be now read a first time. 
Debate interrupted. 
Tabling of Documents 
Question No. 12 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I seek leave to table three documents. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member should have done that before I called the next item. I will have to take the leave of the House that we return to it. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It might help my education on how the House works. It is my understanding that a member can raise a point of order and seek leave to table documents at any time. The leave of the House is not constrained at any time. If Mr Franks wants to come to the House during the next session and seek leave to table papers surely he is able to do so. But for you to ask the House to grant leave for the member even to be able to ask for leave because question time has finished is an absolute nonsense. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I must agree with the member; I made a mistake. I would just like to urge members to remember that question time is the time to table documents relating to questions. Of course the member can seek leave to table the documents. He can seek leave now. 
Stephen Franks 
: I seek leave to table a letter dated 3 November 2004 from Mr Peter Kippenberger a regional manager for the Land Transport Safety Authority as it then was. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that letter. Is there any objection? There is. 
Stephen Franks 
: I seek leave to table an answer to a written question received yesterday from the Minister of Police concerning drivers’ identities. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that written answer. Is there any objection? There is. 
Veterinarians Bill 
First Reading 
Debate resumed. 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Associate Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Primary Production Committee for consideration and that the committee present its final report on or before 14 June 2005. 
There are currently 2597 registered veterinarians in New Zealand working in a broad range of roles in rural and urban practices Government service universities research institutes and key industries such as food processing and pharmaceuticals. Veterinarians are responsible for maintaining animal health and welfare and in doing so they make an important contribution to our society. 
Veterinarians also make a significant contribution to New Zealand’s economic performance. Livestock-based industries in which they are involved both on-farm and off-farm earned about 44 percent of New Zealand’s export earnings last year. As well veterinarians play a vital role in providing assurance to domestic and international consumers that our livestock-based food products are safe to consume and free of biosecurity risks. 
The current legislative framework for veterinary practice in New Zealand is governed by the Veterinarians Act of 1994. The Act established the Veterinary Council of New Zealand as the principal body responsible for protecting the public interest by regulating the veterinary profession and by encouraging high standards of professional practice. In particular the council is responsible for maintaining the registration of veterinarians establishing the standards for veterinary practice and hearing and determining complaints and exercising disciplinary powers. 
The Veterinarians Bill will repeal and replace the 1994 Act. The impetus behind the change is the need to provide the veterinary profession with a more modern and flexible governance structure comparable to other professions such as the medical profession. 
The bill will also enable a larger pool of overseas-trained veterinarians to seek registration in New Zealand. That is because the bill repeals the previous requirement that only persons holding a 5-year veterinary science degree from certain recognised institutions are eligible for registration in New Zealand. Overseas veterinarians with 4-year veterinary science degrees from non-recognised institutions will be able to apply for registration subject to successfully completing any examinations or training courses prescribed or approved by the council. 
These changes reflect international trends—in particular the increasing practice of overseas veterinary schools to offer 4½-year veterinary science degrees. The examinations and training courses are designed to help maintain the standard of veterinarians registered in New Zealand and to continue to give consumers including our trading partners confidence in New Zealand’s veterinary services. 
The bill also clarifies and improves provisions relating to the Veterinary Council’s disciplinary powers. In particular it will provide the council with wider options for dealing with complaints than are currently available under the 1994 Act. That will better align the council’s disciplinary powers to the seriousness of offences. It also means that the council can impose penalties comparable to those contained in the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act. That will ensure that incentives are there for veterinarians to carry out their professional responsibilities to required standards. 
These changes to the disciplinary powers and processes are important for the maintenance of confidence in the complaints process. It is important that veterinarians and members of the public have confidence in the system. 
A further constraint in the Veterinarians Act is that it provides for the implementation of a number of its provisions through regulations. The council considers that to be time consuming and inflexible. It also ties up a lot of the Government’s time and resources. For instance the Act requires that fees paid by veterinarians to the Veterinary Council be established by regulations. Fees are the council’s principal source of income but the current process for the setting of fees is too inflexible and means the council cannot respond quickly to changes in its financial circumstances. 
The bill empowers the Veterinary Council to prescribe its own fees in accordance with the principles contained in the Act after consultation with those paying the fees which will ensure that the fee-setting process is indeed transparent. The Regulations Review Committee will also be able to scrutinise the fees set by the council. 
All other provisions of the Veterinarians Act remain substantially the same. The Veterinary Council and the New Zealand Veterinary Association which is the professional body that represents all veterinarians support the bill’s objectives as the Veterinary Council will be assisted in discharging its statutory obligations. The Government would like to see the bill enacted this year to enable the Veterinary Council of New Zealand to continue under the amended regulatory framework from 1 January 2006 the starting date of its new financial year. 
I commend the bill to the House and want to move that it be referred to the Primary Production Committee for consideration and that the committee present its final report on or before 14 June 2005. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The Minister will move that motion after the bill has been read a first time. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 National will support the Veterinarians Bill to the Production Committee but in my comments today I want to make two or three points. Firstly I express my concern about the regular use and abuse of Standing Order 289 whereby a bill is referred to a select committee and the committee is given 6 months to consider the bill and report it back to the House. Yet again we will see a bill referred to the Primary Production Committee with a guillotine applied to it on the very day the Minister introduces it into the House. 
I learnt today for the first time that the Primary Production Committee will be instructed to work on this legislation and report it back to the House on 14 June this year. I assure the Minister that the Primary Production Committee works very cooperatively and will adhere to that instruction but I say to him that it is my understanding that this bill has been prepared and sitting on the Minister’s desk since the latter part of last year. It could have been presented last year which would have made this guillotine option unnecessary. I also note that the bill has been sitting on the Order Paper since 25 January. So I say to the Minister inexperienced though he is that it is time he got his act together because this legislation is important for the Veterinary Council for the Veterinary Association and for the vets around New Zealand. 
Secondly I want to talk about the significant disappointment expressed in comments I have heard from the industry whereby there has been no liaison between the industry and the Minister’s office because the Minister of Agriculture—the silent Hon Jim Sutton—forbade the officials to liaise with the industry. That means that the legislation now to be presented to the select committee will require considerable work—and considerable submissions from the industry—as again it is asked by this Government to tidy up the mess. I say to the Minister while he is in the Chamber that I have little doubt that if only he had allowed the officials and the industry to work together cooperatively and collaboratively the legislation being read today for the first time would be substantially better. But rest assured yet again the Primary Production Committee will come to the rescue of the Minister. We will do the work on the bill that should have been done before being presented to the select committee. I give my undertaking today that again we will make sure the legislation comes back into the House in far better shape than the committee receives it. 
What this dysfunction of the Minister of Agriculture in forbidding discussion between bureaucracy and the industry shows is a sign of absolute arrogance by Ministers. Ministers with “we know best” attitudes are not what any industry wants. It is time the Government and the Ministers got off their high horses and were prepared to accept the comments and the suggestions made by the industry because that arrogance is something that has been noted throughout New Zealand. It is something that we are seeing day after day in the House during question time and it is something that many many New Zealanders are saying they have had enough of. In mentioning and criticising the Hon Jim Sutton as the Minister of Agriculture I would be remiss not to suggest to him that he should take particular notice of this arrogance because only in the last 2 weeks it has been brought to my attention that two separate provincial branches of Federated Farmers have passed a vote of no confidence in him as Minister. 
Opposition Members 
: Oh! 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: It is outstanding is it not? I have never known before a branch or provincial branch of Federated Farmers having to move motions of no confidence in the Minister. It is occurring because of the arrogance and the disconnection with the sector the Minister is meant to be representing. 
Jill Pettis 
: Don’t be ridiculous. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Jill Pettis says: “Don’t be ridiculous.” She should say that to farmers belonging to Bay of Plenty Federated Farmers and Marlborough Federated Farmers who after working and slaving for the economy of New Zealand go off to a meeting at 7.30 at night to discuss their concerns and the result of their concerns is a substantial notice of motion of no confidence in the Minister of Agriculture—and Jill Pettis the member for Whanganui interjects that we should not be ridiculous. I say to her that that sort of arrogance will cost her a place in this House after the next election. She is gone! Any time now we will be having her valedictory speech because she will not be back. The reason she will not be back is the arrogance that is now throughout the Government. 
I want to make another comment on the principal purpose of the bill which is to establish a far more flexible regime for recognising qualifications and allowing vets to operate in this country and I applaud that. It will be essential because what is happening now is that our young veterinarians are leaving Massey University and because the pay conditions and lifestyle in places like Australia are so substantially superior to what we have in New Zealand they are leaving this country. There is a lack of rural veterinarians throughout New Zealand and we will therefore have to start attracting people who have not qualified at Massey University. We will have to start attracting people from other universities and have a sensible regime that allows those people to qualify. However the point to be noted is that it is an absolute shame that we are putting that investment into young New Zealanders—and I happen to know of one personally in my own extended family who did a 5-year Massey University course and who is now operating in Melbourne—only to have that outcome and that is something that this Government should take heed of. 
The final issue I want to comment on is the genuine vulnerability in relation to vet practices. I had a discussion recently with some of my colleagues and members of the profession and it was recognised that while stud breeders with a high-value animal may continue to have significant involvement with the veterinary profession as the vet charges continue to increase because of compliance costs that have been imposed by this Labour Government the economics of calling a vet on to a commercial farm become more and more questionable. When that happens I am genuinely concerned that there will then be a dislocation between the veterinary profession and many commercial farmers. That is a long-term danger for New Zealand if we remember that agriculture is still the backbone of our economy. The buoyancy of the last 5 years has not been because of Dr Cullen one iota—quite the opposite in fact. The buoyancy is because of agriculture in this country but as we see rural veterinary practices put at some risk economically and commercial farmers having less and less contact with vets then we are at serious risk of their being a lack communication a lack of knowledge and a lack of extension occurring at the farm gate. I raise that as a genuine concern and as something that worries me as a practising farmer. 
Those comments come from a person—myself—who is currently a farmer and who was also a stud breeder for a number of years. In the time I was a stud breeder I had considerable contact with the veterinary profession and I learnt a lot from it. But as we move into intensive agriculture farmers will be in a position of having to monitor the cost of each veterinary call and question the economics of calling a vet on to the farm and if that happens things will be at risk. 
I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Primary Production Committee as we progress the Veterinarians Bill. We will adhere to the guillotine instruction given by the Minister today and make sure the bill is back to the House before 14 June. Finally I guarantee that the bill will come back as usual in far better shape than the shape in which it is presented to the select committee today. 
JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 I wish to take a short call on this important bill. I want to say first of all that the Veterinary Council and the New Zealand Veterinary Association support the bill’s objectives. I object to some of the statements that David Carter the member from the National Party has just made— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Who? 
JILL PETTIS 
: Well most people would not know him—about the representation of the agricultural sector by the current Minister of Agriculture the Hon Jim Sutton who has been one of the best Ministers of Agriculture that this country has known. The level of confidence expressed in him has come from precisely the sector that he represents. A number of farmers that I speak to both in my electorate and out of it have spoken very highly of Jim Sutton’s accessibility and of his common-sense down-to-earth approach to agricultural matters. I think that the Opposition member was for some time a spokesperson on agriculture but nobody would ever have known it. 
This bill is important because it does allow overseas veterinarians with 4-year veterinary science degrees from non-recognised institutions to apply for registration subject to them successfully completing any examinations or training courses that are prescribed or approved by the Veterinary Council. That shows that the Veterinary Council itself and the New Zealand Veterinary Association are very closely associated with this legislation. It is good legislation and I look forward to its rapid progress through the House so that the sector it is aimed to benefit can start to benefit from it. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a notice of no confidence in the Minister of Agriculture Jim Sutton from the Marlborough provincial Federated Farmers meeting held at Waihopai. It requests his resignation and it was passed unanimously. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 I think right there we have just found out where the motions of no confidence in the Minister of Agriculture are coming from. I would suggest to Federated Farmers that they very quickly adopt what used to be the rule of having a non-partisan role in politics. I will be talking to their new chief executive officer when she comes to see me. [ 
Interruption 
] I am sure the member has; I can see by the motion that he has. When she comes to see me I will advise her that partisan politics in a lobby group such as Federated Farmers is not a very good idea. New Zealand First will be in favour of sending this bill to the select committee and we look forward to doing that. However I take note of and recognise the authenticity of what my National colleague David Carter was saying when he said that our goodwill in the Primary Production Committee is being traded on just a little by Labour members and that they should not do that. They are continually asking us to rush bills through that select committee—because we largely agree with one another—but that is not a good idea because the day may come when we are not as cooperative as we currently are. 
I think it is important to look behind this bill to understand its ramifications and why it has come about. We are once again in a situation in this country where we are short of people on farms and in particular in this case we are short of veterinarians who work on farms. The core intent of this bill is to ask us to bring into this country people with degrees or training that are lesser in standard than what we have imposed on our own veterinarians to date. We may ask ourselves why that is and Mr Carter has given us the answer. It is because our veterinarians well trained in a 5-year course are going overseas and we are being forced to accept veterinarians from other countries with lesser degrees coming to practise in this country. Admittedly there will be top-up exams and training courses for them but that is a very sad situation. My leader who is not one for clichés would say that we are exporting First World expertise and importing Third World expertise for our citizens and that can never be a good thing. So we understand the reasons for this bill but we urge members to look further and ask why our veterinarians are leaving as Mr Carter said to go and practise in Australia or elsewhere which means we face the situation of accepting into this country people with lesser degrees. That is not good. 
I also hope that when these people come to this country we will not see the situation we have seen in other professions where people have been imported to fill a space on farms which are the backbone of this country. We heard the dialogue between the two old parties in the House just a wee while ago about farmers being the backbone of the country—and they still are. I just hope that the people who come in really will commit themselves to serving or to carrying out their profession on farms. It would be sad indeed if we were to import them and they did not go on to farms but instead parked themselves in Auckland or in other big cities around the country and attended to what veterinarians term their bread and butter: the small animal practices they run in cities where they neuter cats drench the like and so on and so forth. Those city practices are very profitable but they are not there for our No. 1 export. I am not downgrading somebody’s pet dog or anything else but we are short of veterinarians on farms— 
Brian Connell 
: Or their budgies. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON 
: Or their budgies—and if this bill is carried through we want to see that shortage fixed up. So I say that New Zealand First has that concern and that members should look behind what is happening here and recognise the situation for what it is. 
It is also interesting to note that the Act this bill is modifying was set in place only back in 1994 so it is not a very old Act at all. That is another concern—that bills coming to this Parliament nowadays are replacing Acts that are not very old. In actual fact not enough foresight is being put into the bills that are coming into the House these days. 
Hon David Carter 
: We’ll watch that. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON 
: We will have to watch that as this bill comes through the select committee—a very very cooperative select committee indeed. 
I want to raise another question. Where is the foresight and the training and where are the skills being put in place to train more veterinarians in this country? If we are to lose a percentage—a good percentage by the look of it—of our veterinarians to other countries because they are so well qualified and well recognised let us produce more of them instead of importing people of a lesser standard. I think that instead of seeing what we are seeing and hearing what is exposed to us in question time when we learn of courses in this country that pass for university or training courses in such things as cooking pork bones or whatever else it may be let us see more resources being put in to the serious stuff like training veterinarians doctors and the like. Members will notice that I left lawyers off the list there because there is a suggestion that we may already have enough of them. But let us put our resources into the productive areas. 
Lastly I want to suggest to the Labour Government when it is talking about what it has done for farmers that it has not done anything for them at all. Before the National members start to burst into hysterical laughter I would suggest that National has not done anything for farmers either. It has not been fashionable to do things for farmers over the last vast number of years. In closing I can certainly tell the Labour Government what farmers have done for it. Farmers are still the backbone of this country. They are still the people who provide the exports and set the living standard for this country and this Labour Government should never ever forget that. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 I am delighted to speak on the first reading of the Veterinarians Bill. I made what I think was a wrong assumption that this bill would be totally non-political. This bill was after all meant to be about engaging with the veterinary community in fine-tuning what is needed to ensure that the very very high competency standards of veterinarians remain and indeed are enhanced. Veterinarians also require certain flexibilities. I was very pleased to hear from veterinarians themselves—because I am one of those members who actually speak to them—that they were broadly speaking happy with the thrust of the bill. They said that they supported what the bill was trying to do. 
But the veterinarians who have studied the bill have said to me that it is very untidy—that it is badly worded and needs significant changes. Mr David Carter the chair of the Primary Production Committee alluded to that earlier. I reiterate to the Minister and to officials that that message comes from a group of professional people who understand exactly what is needed. This bill is not about revenue gathering or self-benefit. The whole bill is about ensuring that veterinarians get an Act to govern that hugely important area of endeavour that will ensure the future of the agrarian sector—because it goes hand in hand with that of veterinarians—is very positive. I have been told on a number of occasions that this bill is right in intent but very very wrong in content. So yet again the Primary Production Committee will have to tidy up the mess. 
Let me give just one example of why this bill will need a tidy-up. If a veterinarian—just as in the case of a doctor—is deemed to be highly incompetent or to have a mental or physical incapacity he or she should be suspended forthwith. Under the proposal in this PC nonsense a meeting and a hearing will be set up. How long will that take? Meanwhile very expensive thoroughbred horses stud bulls or whatever animals they may be could well be under threat. The industry needs the flexibility to move immediately in the unfortunate event of somebody not meeting the mental or physical standards required to become a vet or to retain his or her practising certificate. That person’s licence to practise needs to be withdrawn forthwith. The real question that arises is why that provision was not discussed with the veterinary profession. 
Again I want to reiterate what Mr David Carter said. He was absolutely correct in saying that the Veterinary Association which represents the veterinarians themselves has not been associated with the changes that show up in this bill. The question that really needs to be asked is why that is the case. Why did Jim Sutton not instruct his officials to go to the Veterinary Association and ask what needed to be put in this bill in order to ensure that the association—a professional body of people—was happy with it? If I had been the Minister I would have asked the profession to write the bill and then bring it back to the Government to be tidied up in order to meet the Government’s standards and requirements before being progressed. Instead a huge amount of time will be spent in the select committee on tidying up the bill. We really have to ask why we did not get it right the first time. We need to go back to the question of why the Minister Jim Sutton did not ensure that that consultation took place in the first instance. I think it is dead right to say he has fallen out so badly with those who are directly or peripherally associated with agriculture that he no longer cares about their opinion. 
It is also quite wrong of Jill Pettis—or indeed my colleague Doug Woolerton—to suggest that Federated Farmers are somehow backing certain parties in this House. I have been speaking with farmers and with Federated Farmers. I know they have political affiliations right across the spectrum. But there is one party that they are totally tossing out. Some of them flirted briefly with Jim Sutton and the Labour Party but the members of Federated Farmers have seen so many bad decisions affect the farming community that they are demanding that their executive tell the Government it is wrong and farmers do not want any part of it. [ 
Interruption 
] There may even be one or two farmers left who will vote for New Zealand First! I tell Mr Woolerton there is an ugly rumour circulating to that effect. That may be the case. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: They would advance their cause if they did. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: I say good on them if that is what they choose to do. Federated Farmers have assiduously tried to keep apolitical but in the appalling case of the flatulence tax Jim Sutton—who did not discuss this bill with farmers either—studiously ignored the view of Federated Farmers. Regrettably he is still in charge of the issue of access and is totally ignoring the people who are directly affected. So why should we in this House be surprised that Jim Sutton has also ignored the Veterinary Association’s advice on the matter before us? It is as natural as night following day that that would be the case. 
I also reiterate the words of my colleagues Mr Woolerton and Mr Carter who said that we in the Primary Production Committee all recognise the huge value and importance of the teaching facilities at Massey University in Palmerston North and the high quality and high standard of our veterinarians right throughout the country. They do a fantastic job. They can be called out in the middle of the night and on weekends and they come just like doctors. I had a yearling bull that my son thought was a steer until we got him in. There was no way that I would get into the race with the bull and use the unkindest cut of all on him. But the young woman veterinarian without batting an eyelid went in and did the deed. I have to admit that it brought a tear to my eye. When one is dealing with animals one has to marvel at the huge skill and knowledge of veterinarians. We really do need to pay tribute to the veterinary profession for what it does for the agricultural industry which contributes so fantastically to our economy. 
Just today we witnessed Fonterra announcing that another $240 million is to go into New Zealand’s economy from the dairy industry. That money will go into the wider community because everybody knows that there is no one sillier than a farmer with a few dollars in his or her pocket. That money is spent and the whole community benefits from it. That is well recognised. We get a few bucks and we want to go out and spend it. That is a marvellous way to distribute that sort of cash rather than the Government’s way which is to tax and take constantly. 
I reiterate that I think it is a shame that veterinarians across the board appear to be rather upset with the Government for not consulting them properly on this bill. It would have saved a heck of a lot of time effort and money had the Government done so. But the Opposition will continue to talk with their professional bodies even if the Government will not. I look forward to this bill going to the select committee where yet again the Government’s mess will be tidied up. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 It seems that there is a cross-party consensus on the Veterinarians Bill which is very good news indeed. It seems to the Greens that the main purpose of this bill is simply to make it easier for overseas vets to apply to register in New Zealand in order to address the shortage of vets in New Zealand that has been created by so many of our vets going overseas. 
We agree with Doug Woolerton from New Zealand First that it is all well and good to send this legislation to the select committee and consider it there but we need to address why there are such shortages in the veterinary profession and why so many of our vets are heading overseas. We think that the shortage of vets in New Zealand should be met in the first instance by attracting back those who have left the profession or gone overseas to practise and by increasing the number of students trained in New Zealand rather than always relying on overseas sources whenever we encounter a shortage in any skill line such as this. 
To attract veterinarians back here we need to make the profession more attractive. There needs to be less isolation for rural vets less stress and in particular less debt for students who are undertaking veterinary studies. We need to remember that students must undertake a 5-year course to become veterinarians and many of our veterinarians are saddled with crippling debts after they have trained which is why of course they head overseas. So the real solution to the veterinary shortage in New Zealand is not just to bring in overseas vets. We must deal with the issue of student debt. 
The Green Party has a policy of introducing a universal student allowance and of wiping out student debt progressively. In this case for a veterinarian for every year a vet worked in New Zealand after obtaining that training a significant percentage about a quarter of his or her debt would be wiped. That is the way to address the problem rather than with this short-term solution of trying to bring in vets from overseas. The underlying problem of the shortage of vets is of serious concern to us. The shortage impacts on all sorts of aspects of agriculture and it also impacts on animal welfare. 
Already we are seeing the impact of the shortage of vets. An audit of veterinary prescribing was done last year and it found that some vets were not even bothering to visit animals. They were dispensing prescriptions to animals without even visiting farms. The vets basically seemed to be just responding to the demands of farmers. There seemed to be a lack of monitoring and auditing and some really rather slack standards. We assume that this situation comes in large part from the shortage of vets in New Zealand. So we are very concerned about increasing the number of veterinarians and improving animal welfare. We wish that veterinarians would take a leading role in this. We are very pleased with the leading role they have taken on the debate on tail-docking and we very much look forward to their taking an equally leading role on other even more crucial animal welfare issues such as the cruel treatment of pigs and hens which are kept in cages where they cannot express any natural forms of behaviour. 
It is unfortunate that veterinarians are not speaking out about these practices despite the fact that they breach the objectives of the Animal Welfare Act. Also of course it is veterinarians who are dispensing the very large amounts of antibiotics that the millions of chickens in New Zealand are fed for breakfast lunch and dinner despite the fact that there is increasing evidence of the spread of antibiotic resistance throughout our chicken flocks. 
We look forward to veterinarians taking a more proactive role in animal welfare issues. We also want to see more and better-trained New Zealand veterinarians. We support the bill’s referral to the select committee and we will support it there and afterwards. We hope that improvements will be made to the bill at the select committee as others have suggested. 
BERNIE OGILVY (United Future) 
: 
 United Future will support the first reading of the Veterinarians Bill and its referral to the Primary Production Committee. Having spent one session on that committee I was delighted indeed that the bill is going there because I think it is a very cooperative committee with a lot of good robustness about it in terms of getting to the point and ensuring that the point does not get lost. That is a very good committee for the bill to go to. 
We support this bill for a number of reasons. One reason is that when this bill takes effect even though the Act it will replace is only 10 years old it will be a growth stage in a profession and I am delighted by that. It will start to give a professionalism to veterinarians in this country and to those who will come into this country. I am quite delighted by this upgrading because when professionals take over their own profession there is a shift whereby the Government’s control mechanisms are weakened and civil society starts to get some more strength into it. We are very satisfied that this will happen. 
Indeed I wonder with the professionalism that will take place through this bill whether some of the numbers issues might well be addressed at the same time. We are losing people from this country to other nations for various reasons as other speakers have noted but one reason is certainly that they want to belong to a professional society and group. This bill now allows for that opportunity and I think this really will be another means to attract New Zealanders to stay here. We are very happy with that. 
We also support this bill because it will go to a select committee that will be able to obtain a tremendous input from people around the country. This bill as it sits needs some polishing. The select committee will be able to do that. It will be able to take hold of some of the loose ends and hear the concerns and that is what a select committee is all about as I understand it. I am very very happy that we support this bill because it is at the select committee that the veterinarians and those associated with the industry—be they on the domestic side or in the farming industries—will be able to have their input. This bill will then flourish and have strength added to it. 
I applaud a bill that gives greater flexibility to any group and this particular group the Veterinary Council will have more flexibility to operate. It is because of those sorts of things that we are for example looking at parity of degree requirements between other countries and ours. I think that that is another step in the professionalism that this nation needs and has been pursuing through the New Zealand Qualifications Authority and its various other additions over the years. This profession is just starting to catch on to that so I applaud that. Whether a person takes 4 years to obtain a degree or 5 years is not so material as what the content and the learning is. Those comparisons and other issues will come to the Primary Production Committee and will be validated or otherwise. 
United Future believes that this legislation will help this profession in this country. I believe New Zealand has a lot to offer as an agricultural nation and this is one of the things it can offer as even those who come into the country as perfect strangers will learn. One of the great benefits we get from immigrants is the innovation the drive and a way of looking at things that sometimes we are over-familiar with and we miss the point. A new view can add to our agricultural industry particularly and therefore see us grow and be enhanced as a nation. So it is with delight really that we support this bill and we hope that the Primary Production Committee will do due justice to it when it receives it. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I rise to support the Veterinarians Bill and I note that the Veterinary Council and the New Zealand Veterinary Association which of course is the professional body that represents all veterinarians support the bill’s objectives as they will assist the Veterinary Council in discharging its statutory obligations. 
I listened with interest to Mr Doug Woolerton. He made some observations about the possible role of Federated Farmers and I am hoping that Mr Woolerton will send a copy of his speech to Annabel Young the new chief executive. I think Doug Woolerton as a farmer himself gave some very timely and very relevant advice. I think in the context of Mr Eckhoff’s speech in terms of the role of Federated Farmers and apparently he is now claiming to be the representative in this House of the Federated Farmers on one hand he was assuring us it was a totally non-partisan— 
Hon Member 
: He is recognised! 
MARTIN GALLAGHER 
: Well I think Federated Farmers have more clues than to put all their eggs in the 2 percent barrel or 1 percent. But I will say this to Annabel Young as the topic did come up for conversation in terms of the role of Federated Farmers and certainly in the context of this bill and also some other issues that they are concerned with: I think Doug Woolerton gave some very good advice. I notice that other MPs have come from a partisan environment in this House. Tony Friedlander has made a very good transition in terms of the work he is doing with the Road Transport Forum. Annabel Young should look at him as a role model. The Hon Doug Kidd who of course was well respected by both sides of the House in terms of his expertise and background in terms of the fishing area certainly again has made that transition and a very good one. He is seen as an expert—a person who is listened to with respect. 
The other really shining example that Annabel Young could look at if she is looking at how to make that transition of course is the Rt Hon James Bolger who I think is doing a sterling job with New Zealand Post. So the bottom line is that we are looking to Federated Farmers to be that non-partisan body. I have to say that they need to look no further than the Waikato. Our local branch in my view is very good. There is excellent leadership and I enjoy very good relations with them. 
Let me assure this House that I will listen to them very very closely on this bill. They will have some significant things to say because this bill is very important to the rural community and to our economy and that is noted. 
I will just finally close and as I did say to my whips take at least a couple of minutes to say that this is a very important bill. I certainly wish the Primary Production Committee well in its consideration. I think it is very important for young people in this country to have adequate opportunities to follow a path of veterinary science to enable them to become vets. We want to keep Kiwis. We want Kiwis to be doing this job and this bill will make it easier for our vets and recognise their importance. It is a long-overdue overhaul of the rules around the profession. I commend it to the select committee. I am sure the Labour members on the select committee as the chairman will vouch will do a very good job and I am sure he will do so as well. I wish the members well and frankly I will be listening to my own branch of Federated Farmers on these and other issues much more than Mr Eckhoff with due respect. 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I want to start by responding to a couple of comments that Jill Pettis made about Jim Sutton. I was down at a ward meeting in Timaru on Tuesday night. There was a room full of farmers and Jim Sutton— 
Hon David Carter 
: That’s not in your electorate. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: No but it was in Timaru and that is why it is important. Jim Sutton got up and started speaking to the meeting. Someone put up a hand and asked: “Excuse me who are you?”. That was to the Minister of Agriculture in his own electorate. They did not know who he was. Then he apologised for being late for the meeting. He said: “I can’t control whether the aeroplanes will get here on time or not.” Someone said: “Well Jim you should have just jumped in a car and sped down.” So I thought that was pretty good advice to the Minister of Agriculture. I am sure he went home thinking that he will have to work harder if he is to retain that seat down in Aoraki against a fantastic candidate in Jo Goodhew. She is doing a splendid job and she is knocking on lots of doors. 
Let me come to the bill and say that National does support it to the select committee. But we have some very clear reservations. There are some components of the bill in terms of just speaking about this that will be repetitious but that I am afraid is the nature of the way this bill has been drafted. 
The first thing the bill is calling for is a modernisation—a makeover—and we definitely support the intent of that. I have spoken to the Veterinary Council and the Veterinary Association and they also say that this move is overdue. But the thing that concerns them is the issue of registration and getting enough vets to work in New Zealand. It is not just the issue of whether we have enough vets but also the issue of where those vets are working. Too many of our vets now are attracted into our large cities to run small animal practices and what is happening around our farms—our productive sector—is that farmers simply do not have enough vets to call on. 
So what has been suggested and I support the initiative is a relaxation of the requirement for a minimum 5-year qualification. That requirement does not take into account the qualifications of people whom the council deems would be suitably qualified to work in the area of veterinary science. That is absolutely essential. What is happening is that we are producing First World graduates in this country we are paying them Third World wages and we wonder why they are going overseas in droves. It is not just our vets. We have 500000 people—and just a very quick analysis of those people tells us that they are amongst our best and brightest—working in other people’s economies right now. So I support what the legislation is trying to do. It will provide some flexibility that will attract people in sufficient numbers to support our vets and enable our agricultural sector to get enough people on the ground at the right time in the right numbers and with the right skill. The right skill is not being relaxed; that is important. 
I do have to say that what this Government has done around the scholarship debacle will not help this issue one iota. Here we are facing a shortage of vets and hardly a science student in this country received a scholarship! It all goes back to the feet of Trevor Mallard and this Government. It is an appalling outcome that he has managed and he should be held accountable for it. 
The other part of the bill that I agree with is the aspect of limited registration. For example it will allow the council to have a greater ability to allow people to practise in their areas of specialisation or strength without their necessarily having the full breadth of veterinary skills. The council has suggested that that could be in the area of research teaching meat inspection or pathology. Essentially the bill is saying that someone should be allowed to practise in his or her area of skill under very strict conditions. To me that makes sense and it is very pragmatic. 
The second issue I want to raise with the House is around the area of fee setting. Under the present Act fees must be set by Order in Council. That is overly cumbersome and bureaucratic. The bill intended—and I say that with some caution—to allow for the setting of fees by the Veterinary Council after due consultation. In other words it wanted to be able to gazette fees rather than set them by way of regulation. But the bill has been drafted in such a way that that intent is not being captured and the Primary Production Committee will need to be very cognisant of that point when the bill comes before it. 
The third area to note is that the council will have wider and more flexible disciplinary powers. The bill will allow for competency review by peers and essentially the council will have powers to sanction those who are not practising to agreed standards. That part of the modernisation is absolutely necessary if our vets are to maintain the high reputation they have. It is a sensible improvement and essentially it would bring the veterinarians’ profession into line with other professions like accounting law and the medical profession. That is the intent but as I have already alluded to there are some omissions and errors which are primarily in the drafting. They can be fixed and unless they are fixed the intent—which all the parties in this House support—will be lost. So the select committee will need to look at that very carefully. [ 
Interruption 
] I am sure that it will. 
I spoke about the council’s ability to set standards and to have greater disciplinary powers. However the only instruments it has at the moment to do that with the way the bill has been drafted are by way of Order in Council. That was not and is not the intention. Vets want the ability to bring their profession into line with other professions as I have already said. Specifically they want to insist on continuing education. They want to be able to say to people in the profession: “You must keep abreast with modern science otherwise we will reserve the right to look at your practising certificate.” I think that is reasonable. That is what other professions insist on and I think it only reasonable that an area of scientific endeavour like this should have the same rule run across it as well. But again the way the bill is drafted that intent is being lost. 
The other area that I shall touch on briefly is around the issue of appeals. If a vet has been deemed by the council which is essentially his or her peers not to be performing to an adequate standard at the moment—unless the council meets which is on a very protracted basis—the council does not have the ability to say to that person that: “We want to start an investigation or revoke your ability to practise.” The way that this legislation is drafted a litigious vet could appeal that process to the District Court. He or she could drag out that process for months if not years. I suggest that the select committee consider amending the process to allow appeals to the High Court. It would be a more expensive process and one would want to be certain of one’s position before spending the money and so would the council. So I think that is a sensible suggestion. I suppose that I am suggesting the select committee looks at the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act. 
In summary I conclude with these views. The intent of the bill is good. The National Party supports it but unless the drafting is tidied up that intent will be lost and an opportunity to modernise the bill and bring it into line with like professions will be lost. 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a brief call on the first reading of the Veterinarians Bill. This bill affects far more than just the 2500 people who work as vets in New Zealand. It impacts on all of those who use the services that vets provide both on farm and off farm. It is particularly important in rural parts of New Zealand where having a stable and highly professional veterinary workforce is important for the carrying out of farm work and therefore is important for the economy of New Zealand. 
As the previous speaker Brian Connell said a number of aspects of the bill line up better with legislation relating to other professionals across the health workforce. The Minister Damien O’Connor in his speech made reference to the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act which outlines what professional standards should be disciplinary matters and other powers that the council will have. 
It is a bill that I know is welcomed by the Veterinary Council and Veterinary Association. They of course will put forward their views to the very good Primary Production Committee which I am sure will be ably chaired by Mr Carter and assisted by Labour members. I look forward to seeing this bill come back to the House for its speedy passage in order to assist veterinarians in our country. 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 National supports the Veterinarians Bill to the select committee. A number of issues have been mentioned already this evening and we certainly want to know what they mean. National members have had a meeting with vets in recent times. One of the major concerns is that the bill will allow—and that was not done in consultation with vets—a prescription to be given by a vet but the farmer landowner or whoever will be able to buy that prescriptive drug off the shelf at for example one of the stock and station agencies. Although one can understand the costs associated with that—and we want to keep compliance costs down and make sure that the purchaser of the product is getting the best deal—it may be that the person selling at one of those agencies does not have the expertise to understand the importance of the drug he or she is dispensing. A person could have the script for a prescriptive drug and the agency he or she goes to could well be having a sale and is able to give a 10 percent discount on the particular product. That would be an incentive for the person doing the buying. That is an area of concern that vets have identified. 
In contrast members of the farming community whom I have spoken to say that they want the best price they can get because of the compliance costs. They understand the use of medicines because they are dealing with them all the time. That is an area we need to work through in the select committee. 
Like many professions in rural areas the veterinary profession is having trouble attracting the personnel it requires. It is the same with valuers accountants teachers and doctors. The veterinary profession is no different in wanting to attract its people to some of the rural areas. The demands now placed on vets and the opportunities for them to specialise are very exciting. There is now a big demand for small animal vet services and vets are attracted to that side of the profession. 
The equine industry is very much a part of where I come from Matamata. Vets working in the equine industry there are very busy with the work they do. In fact a new hospital for horses is being established and opened tomorrow in Matamata. That shows the importance of veterinary science in the very important racing industry. 
There is a big demand for vets in the meat inspection services. Vets are at the coalface and are the people who will sign off on the export product. As my colleague the Hon David Carter mentioned during his speech primary industry is still New Zealand’s No. 1 export earner. We need that protection and vets form part of that. They are the safeguard. Anything that can add value to our primary products—and in that case it will be vets—is to be encouraged and supported. 
When we look at what this bill actually does we see that it replaces the current 5-year degree requirement with a more flexible requirement that allows the Veterinary Council to recognise formally veterinary qualifications from certain institutions. Further a person holding a minimum 4-year veterinary science degree from an institution not recognised by the council may seek registration. That is important because many vets in rural practice are from overseas. In the Waikato a number of vets are from South Africa. We also had a young lady who came out from the United States. That was interesting for her to come from the profession there and work in a rural area in the Matamata region. 
Vets have told us recently that a huge number of women are graduating in veterinary science. That is great to see. However those women are not actually moving out into the farming areas—let us say for example the dairy area—but are mainly specialising in the small animal practice. 
I guess we have had success over the years because as some members may recall New Zealand did not have a veterinary science school and if someone wanted to be a vet he or she had to go over to Werribee just outside Melbourne where the veterinary science school was. We have advanced our reputation. We have a proud reputation in veterinary science. We have some leading exponents of that—[ 
Interruption 
] Well the National Certificate of Educational Achievement will most certainly put a damper on that. 
The point I make is that we need to attract train and retain our brightest and best in New Zealand and that is certainly why National supports this legislation. As I said earlier our wealth creators—the primary industries—need back-up and support from other professions and vets and the Veterinary Council are to be encouraged and supported. National will support this bill through to the select committee. 
Bill read a first time. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police) 
 on behalf of the  
Associate Minister of Agriculture 
: I move  
That the Veterinarians Bill be referred to the Primary Production Committee 
referred to Primary Production Committee 
 for consideration and that the committee present its final report on or before 14 June 2005 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I move  
That the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I will move that the bill be considered by the Education and Science Committee and that the committee report the bill finally to the House by 3 June 2005. In June 2003 the Government announced its strategy to improve the workability of the hazardous substances provisions of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. The strategy was developed in close consultation with industry leaders and focused on improving workability to achieve the purpose of the Act—that is to protect the environment and the health and safety of people and their communities by preventing or managing the adverse effects of hazardous substances. The bill is the second of two legislative actions identified in the strategy. This bill like the first one deals only with hazardous substances. The first legislative change the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Transitional Provisions and Controls) Amendment Bill was passed in early 2004. It focused on removing immediate barriers to the transfer of hazardous substance management from the old regime to the new hazardous substances and new organisms regime. The main barrier then was the requirement to transfer substances by regulation. Transfer can now happen by  
Gazette 
 notice. 
At the time when that legislation passed last year I flagged the need for a further more detailed amendment to the hazardous substances and new organisms regime in order to improve the workability of the Act and remove barriers to innovation and sustainable economic growth. The key amendment in this current bill is the provision of a new approval mechanism known as a “group standard”. When the Environmental Risk Management Authority is satisfied that a group standard is an efficient and effective way of managing the risks it will be able to group substances based on similar type use or risks—for example groups for paints cosmetics and animal vaccines—and to set user-friendly conditions for the group. 
Because this bill will improve the workability of the Act it will reduce costs to industry and to the Government while continuing to protect the environment and the health and safety of people and their communities. The group standards mechanism will reduce costs to industry by reducing the number of applications that businesses need to make to the Environmental Risk Management Authority and by providing simpler prescriptive alternatives to the technical controls in regulations which small and medium enterprises have found very difficult to implement. Through this legislation a group standard could state what ought to be on a label and how that label should look. That will give businesses a lot more certainty. The group standards mechanisms will reduce costs to Government by providing the Environmental Risk Management Authority with an efficient way to transfer the vast majority of approximately 70000 notified toxic substances to the full hazardous substances and new organisms regime by June 2006. Without group standards it is anticipated that transfer would cost the Government in the order of an extra $2 million. 
There is an additional aspect of the group standards mechanism that I believe is very important. Many wastes and some manufactured articles have hazardous characteristics that exceed hazardous substance and new organism thresholds. In other words they really should be regulated under the hazardous substances and new organisms regime as they are for instance corrosive eco-toxic or flammable. However hazardous substance and new organism controls cannot be applied at present because those controls are linked to a hazardous substances and new organisms approval and an approval is needed only if someone intends to manufacture or import a hazardous substance. Obviously waste by-products such as toxic wastes from the pulp and paper and tannery industries are not manufactured or imported so to date hazardous substance and new organism controls could not be applied to them. This bill changes that. 
Waste by-products can be very dangerous and should be controlled. The existing legislation goes only so far in doing that. The Resource Management Act controls the discharge of waste but does not sufficiently manage the hazards posed by those wastes or articles particularly during storage or transport. We have only to think of the examples that have occurred down the Kaikoura coastline with rat poison going over into the sea. Nor does the Resource Management Act provide for the tracking of such materials. A new group standard on tanning waste for instance would be able to control the containment and labelling of that waste prior to transport treatment and disposal. Bringing such wastes into the ambit of the hazardous substances and new organisms regime is a significant advance in environmental risk management and supports the initiatives of the New Zealand waste strategy. 
Because hazardous wastes are not currently controlled by the hazardous substances and new organisms regime a group standard for a hazardous waste may potentially increase costs to the businesses that produce the waste. However the process of developing a group standard includes public consultation so that businesses and industry will have the chance to have their say on whether the benefits of managing that waste outweigh the costs of doing so. 
I would now like to turn to two other key proposals in this bill. Firstly the Government has become aware that there are gaps in the enforcement of hazardous substance and new organism controls particularly in the environmental area. The bill identifies regional councils as an agency that may enforce hazardous substance and new organism controls thus gaining from the skills and experience regional councils have in environmental monitoring and enforcement providing opportunities for efficiency gains and promoting more comprehensive environmental protection regimes. This bill will also enable regional councils to cost recover their checking for compliance with the hazardous substances and new organisms regime. 
Secondly for hazardous substances such as pesticides the Act currently provides exposure limits as a key method to ensure safe use. However very few exposure limits have been set because the process of establishing such limits is prescriptive and overly onerous to undertake at the same time as the substance is being approved. This bill increases flexibility so the Environmental Risk Management Authority can adopt an international value and we do not have to do each pesticide for example ourselves. The values the authority sets can be used by regional councils as guidelines so they can then be adjusted for local conditions. Exposure limits will also be able to be set and applied for substances after the substance has been approved or transferred. 
This bill also contains amendments to make the hazardous substances and new organisms regime work better in specific cases for enforcement agencies for businesses for research institutes and for the New Zealand Defence Force. I was going to list those for the information of the House but with the aim of getting this first reading through I will not. 
In conclusion this bill includes a number of provisions some of which represent a significant innovation in the hazardous substances and new organisms regime and some of which are targeted to address very specific barriers. Overall these provisions will greatly increase the workability of the Act providing meaningful reductions in costs to industry and the Government while not compromising the level of protection provided to the environment and the health and safety of people and their communities. Further for the first time there will be provision to manage the effects of hazardous wastes and articles. This bill will ensure that the hazardous substances provisions of the Act work better to deliver the key outcome the Act was intended to contribute to: a healthy environment for all New Zealanders. 
I have asked that the bill be reported by 3 June. The Environmental Risk Management Authority needs a year to organise and consult with people with regard to the group standards in order for the transfer to be completed by July 2006. If the House could pass this bill by August we would be helping businesses in New Zealand. I commend the bill to the House. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 National will support the referral of this bill to a select committee because we are of the view that the hazardous substances and new organisms legislation is in need of substantive change if it is going to work practically for the large number of New Zealand industries that use the whole wide range of pesticides hazardous substances and new organisms. The Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act is one of New Zealand’s key environmental statutes alongside the Resource Management Act. It is vitally important not just to the protection of New Zealand’s environment but to the efficiency of our primary industries which remain the backbone of our country. We are disappointed that this bill is the fourth hazardous substances and new organisms amendment introduced into the House by the Hon Marian Hobbs. When she introduced the previous amending bill we said she did not have a bolter’s hope of registering the 70000 chemicals and substances that were required to be registered by the deadline. We still remain disappointed that 5 years after she was appointed as Minister the Act is still not in force. That is another failure by Marian Hobbs Minister for the Environment. 
I express some scepticism that this legislation will result in a reduction in costs. I remember that only a few months ago her Associate Minister David Benson-Pope introduced a resource management bill that he had promised would reduce costs—the enormous costs associated with applications under the Resource Management Act. We have out there in New Zealand right now a universal condemnation whether it is by the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand by councils or by business groups of that Government bill. People are saying that it will treble costs. So we had that Minister introduce a bill just prior to Christmas and already it is discredited. Already all the sector groups are saying it will not reduce costs but will treble them. That is the reason that National has some scepticism about whether this bill also will live up to that claim. 
The part of this bill that is seriously missing is this. If New Zealand is to be competitive and if we are to be able to provide a cost-effective way of registering chemicals—and it is a huge number that our industry is involved with—common sense points to our moving to a trans-Tasman arrangement. In respect of food the previous National Government set up the Australia New Zealand Food Authority. The organisation was successful in providing a line of effective regulation for food to ensure that it is safe while at the same time minimising the compliance costs. We have to recognise that in areas like the key industries that are affected by this legislation we are increasingly part of a trans-Tasman environment. The notion for instance that if one is going to import Sellotape to New Zealand one has to go separately to the Australian authorities and get approval for it and then go to New Zealand and do it all over again—and not just for Sellotape but for the tens of thousands of chemicals—does not make sense. It is common sense for New Zealand to do those approvals in a consistent way with Australia. There is absolutely nothing in this bill that takes us down that path yet the call of industry and of common-sense New Zealanders is to have a common trans-Tasman arrangement in that regard. 
I also note that the Minister wants to send this bill to the education select committee. Well I have looked all the way through the bill and I have to ask what on earth it has to do with education. We know that right now we have a crisis in education. We have the worst situation in 50 years in respect of the botch-up that this Government has made of school qualifications. Tens of thousands of teachers and students want the education select committee to be focused in its efforts on making sure that we do not get a repeat next year of the botched 2004 examinations. And what is the Government going to do? It will refer to that select committee a very detailed complex environmental bill so as to distract the committee from that essential task. I ask why the Government would want to refer this hazardous substances and new organisms bill to the Education and Science Committee and not to the Local Government and Environment Committee. 
All the way through this bill it refers to the interrelationship with the Resource Management Act. That makes good sense: hazardous substances and resource management need to be closely knitted together. In fact this bill makes a number of changes to the Resource Management Act. The Local Government and Environment Committee has before it right now a resource management amendment bill. Would it not make sense for the same committee that has been dealing with that bill to deal with this environmental law? Why does this Government want to bury it in the education select committee which should rightly be focusing its energies and efforts on fixing up Trevor Mallard’s mess with regard to the National Certificate of Educational Achievement? Or is it that the Government wants to distract the committee from the role of assuring some accountability for that mess and is simply using an environmental bill for its latest lot of political skulduggery? Is that what the Government’s agenda is? National will be moving an amendment that states this bill should go where the main bill went. Of course the original hazardous substances and new organisms legislation was dealt with by the Local Government and Environment Committee. So why would amendments to that Act not also be dealt with by that select committee? 
Then we come to the Minister’s motion to have the bill fast-tracked. The Minister having held her ministerial warrant for over 5 years and having made a mess of this area of legislation now wants Parliament to rush this bill through so it can be reported back as she said by 3 June. I say to the Government that the reason it keeps getting into trouble and botching up New Zealanders’ lives is that it does not allow its legislation to be properly scrutinised. It is little wonder that this is the fourth hazardous substances and new organisms amendment bill—the fourth go that this Minister has had at getting that legislation right. And she wants to rush it again! I say to the Minister that she is mistaken. I say to Parliament that it is far better to do the job once and do it right than to have another rushed bill that will result in getting things wrong again in this very complex area of law. I will bet any Government member that if this bill is rushed through within a period of 12 months we will have another hazardous substances amendment bill to fix up another batch of the Minister’s mistakes. 
I say let us do it right. Let us not rush. Let us have the right select committee—the Local Government and Environment Committee—deal with this bill so that we can indeed ensure that New Zealanders have a hazardous substances law that works for our key industries and export industries and that also protects the environment of New Zealand which is so special. 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 The member for Nelson always gets into a high state of excitement whenever he is doing the numbers for Bill English and I thought the anger that was demonstrated in that speech was a classic example of that. I support the first reading of this bill. The previous speaker asked why it is going to the education committee. He did not call it by its full title which is the Education and Science Committee. That committee chaired by the Hon Brian Donnelly has previously done work in the hazardous substances and new organisms area. It has the expertise to consider a bill like this and the best thing our Parliament could do would be to give the bill its first reading send it to that committee and debate it more fully at the second reading. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise to speak on behalf of New Zealand First but particularly on behalf of the Hon Brian Donnelly the New Zealand First MP who is the chair of the Education and Science Committee. New Zealand First will be taking only brief calls on the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill. 
This bill is one of a raft of bills that have their genesis in the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 drawn up by the National administration of that time. It was an Act that created a new framework for how we deal with hazardous substances in New Zealand. This bill continues the process of bringing the regulation of all hazardous substances under the hazardous substances and new organisms regulatory framework. For example the Ministry of Defence portfolio which I watch over on behalf of New Zealand First has responsibility for quite a few hazardous substances. This bill attempts to harmonise the responsibility of the Ministry of Defence and the Environmental Risk Management Authority and that seems entirely sensible. 
The interesting point to note though is that the Government is sending the bill to the Education and Science Committee rather than the more obvious select committee the Local Government and Environment Committee. It is to be noted that this Government has made a practice this parliamentary session of sending hazardous substances and new organisms legislation including the GE legislation to the Education and Science Committee. The reason is simple from where we sit and it is this: the chairman of the Education and Science Committee the Hon Brian Donnelly from New Zealand First is a very competent MP a former Associate Minister a man whom the Government knows is a safe and sensible pair of hands a man who will not allow the legislation to progress without careful scrutiny and a man who will not play any silly games. 
I guess the other thing that cannot be avoided is the observation that the Government clearly does not have the same view as that of the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee. That is something that must annoy the Green Party intensely given the amount of support those members gave the Labour Government—that is the supplying of confidence during its first term of governance. But that is clearly a relationship issue that the Government must sort out. New Zealand First’s Brian Donnelly if the bill finally ends up there will do his duty as the Government knows he will and as New Zealand First knows he will. 
So New Zealand First will support this bill’s referral to the select committee. As usual we promise that we will examine it very carefully at that stage so that the outcomes will ensure citizens that all New Zealanders are kept as safe as possible without unnecessary bureaucratic obstacles to the safe use of hazardous substances. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 I am in the rather unusual position of standing here and saying that I will be supporting the referral of two Government bills to select committees. I do so of course because this bill does hold some small hope and some small promise for the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act which has become a nightmare for anybody wanting to get an organism or a product through the Environmental Risk Management Authority process which is hugely costly and time consuming. So anything even this amendment bill that holds some promise that there may be changes that will speed those processes—which we must do—will receive the support of the ACT party. 
I say again that we support the objectives but I flag now the fact that we do have some concerns over the outcome because the Government has shown that it is exceedingly timorous in its approach to these matters. Some would say that that approach is absolutely crucial. Well I would ask members of this House to reflect on possibly the most important and deleterious effect that some of those substances and organisms have had in this country—and many of them are Government-induced. 
As far as environmental matters are concerned we have had things like gorse and broom which of course have had a huge impact on our environment. Rabbits and opossums which were okayed by the Government of the time have had an enormous and destructive impact on our environment. I struggle to understand why a few seeds possibly even those genetically modified will have some enormous impact that will destroy this country. That is absolute nonsense. 
It is well known that the ACT party is in favour of science. I can only reiterate the comments made earlier about the lack of science graduates coming through our educational process in this country and the appalling debacles we have had just in recent times over the qualifications the standards and indeed the treatment of science graduates—or those hoping to graduate in the future—who have studied only to be whacked by this Government through its appalling management of the New Zealand Qualifications Authority. So ACT issues the warning that we certainly need to increase the numbers of science students. We need to upskill them make life more attractive for them in the school system and ensure that they get through and into the universities. 
We must also ensure that people in this country do not become frightened of science but actually welcome it. I regret to have to say that at this point in time that does not seem to be the case. We seem to be overcome by phobias so that any new innovation or creation—whether from seed companies or whatever—that has shown huge advances in production overseas is treated with absolute disdain in New Zealand and tossed to the side in case something goes wrong. Well I say that we take the precautionary principle in this country to an absolute extreme and in doing so we send our best science graduates overseas. I am sure that members of this House are well aware of the comments of such outstanding people as Professor Alan MacDiarmid. He made the point that we must ensure we do not create a climate of fear of science. Instead we must welcome science and we must encourage our young people to advance our society in the way science has certainly done for us over the last few hundred years. That is one issue that I think is very very important. 
As a farmer and a representative of the rural sector in this Parliament I hear constant complaint from companies and individuals about the time frames cost structures and encumbrances that are placed in front of those who wish to progress the wealth of this nation. It is important that although we can proceed with some haste we can also recognise that caution is appropriate. Indeed nobody is denying that we need to have some sort of body like the Environmental Risk Management Authority to ensure that we look at things seriously and put them through a very rigorous process. But we do not need to impose the controls and cost structures on our productive sector that this Labour Government has imposed on a regular basis. 
I also wish to flag another point that I think is seriously wrong with this bill. The Government is seeking to invoke regional councils in the role of administering or of doing some sort of policing in this business. I hope that means that the Government will fund regional councils in this role. I ask the Minister in charge of the bill the Hon Marian Hobbs—but she is indicating that she is a bit floaty about this one. Well if this role is to be imposed by central government—and I understand there does need to be some measure of control to ensure that standards are met—then I must ask why we are imposing yet another cost on regional councils because that cost will be met by nobody other than the ratepayers of the particular region. I flag to the Minister our hope that the Government will recognise that a huge burden is already placed on regional councils and that when Governments decide in their wisdom—or lack of it—that they actually need the role of the regional councils to be expanded they should look at funding that role to a much greater degree in order to ensure that that cost does not fall back on the long-suffering ratepayers of Otago where I come from or indeed on the rest of the regional or unitary councils throughout New Zealand. 
I close by saying that I do support the bill. I do of course support the lessening of control and cost structure. I hope that the Education and Science Committee will do a damn good job on this bill. I would hate the thought of this bill going to the Local Government and Environment Committee with Jeanette Fitzsimons as chairperson. It would hit the wall and never move any further with the Green Party in charge. So I am delighted that the Minister has had the very good sense to send it to a different select committee. I think that the Primary Production Committee would have been an excellent choice of committee as well but I commend the Minister on the choice of the Education and Science Committee. 
I look forward to the swift passage of this bill and to the elimination of so many of the road blocks in front of our scientific communities and productive sectors. Those communities and sectors really just want to get on with the job introduce new opportunities to our country and make New Zealand stand proud as a country that is welcoming of science and scientists. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party has huge concerns about this bill which we see as something of a regulatory facade. It is a way to fast track or make easier the transfer of 70000 toxic substances—currently not registered or regulated—in an essentially meaningless way through the mechanism of group standards. It clumps things like 20000 cosmetics all together in one standard. Rather than grouping them on the basis of hazard or risk it shoves them all together because they are “of a similar type”. 
The intention of this bill is transparent; it is stated quite clearly. Its intention is to reduce the number of applications that businesses have to make to gain efficiencies for business to reduce business compliance costs and to reduce costs to Government. There is nothing in the bill about protecting the consumer or the environment and protecting our health and safety is only vaguely mentioned. Basically the intention of the bill as I said is just to fast track those substances in a meaningless way. 
Let us look for example at cosmetics. New Zealand is the most unregulated country in the Western World in the area of cosmetics. The European Union has legislation with regard to cosmetics and there are regulations in Australia Canada and so forth. We have nothing. We do not even require the disclosure of the ingredients in cosmetics. We really have no standards whatsoever. What we will be doing in the area of cosmetics is taking 20000 cosmetics and ramming them into a group standard thus ignoring the huge range of different risks. Looking at the European Union legislation I see that cosmetics can contain arsenic and its compounds benzene antibiotics—I could go on and on. There is a huge range of difference in risk amongst the substances in cosmetics. By putting all those 20000 different substances in cosmetics into a group on the basis that they are simply of a similar type and then by managing them through one set of conditions we ignore the fact that very minor differences between substances can have huge effects on their properties. 
For example in the controversial area of milk the difference between A2 milk and A1 milk is a single amino acid made up of a number of atoms yet it is believed that the two types of milk have substantially different effects on some people’s health. The difference is one single amino acid. 
I could give many other examples. Polychlorinated dibenzodioxin is 10 times more potent a toxin than hexachlorodibenzodioxin even though the difference is just one chlorine atom. Even a tiny difference between chlorine acids can make a huge difference to the type of risk to which we will be exposed by that particular hazardous substance. 
So surely it would be logical to regulate the 70000 toxic substances according to risk. That surely is what a risk-based or hazard-based approach would mean. But no we are just clumping them all together in group standards which will be essentially meaningless. 
I am appalled to discover that the Minister is seeking to ram this legislation through by 3 June. This legislation should be very complex. It is really a regulatory facade but it certainly deserves intense scrutiny. 
Why are we sending it to the Education and Science Committee? There has been great speculation about that. Nick Smith says he thinks it is to divert the committee. I believe that it is because the Government is hoping that that committee will not have the expertise and knowledge to understand some of the complexities of this bill. It certainly does not have as much expertise as the Local Government and Environment Committee which has examined a whole lot of similar legislation. It would be far more sensible to send the bill to that committee. I suggest to Ron Mark that the Government’s concern may be that Jeannette Fitzsimons is too effective a chair. She would subject the bill to real scrutiny rather than ram it through after taking a very superficial look at it and then pull it out of the committee by 3 June. In fact I am quite sure that Jeannette Fitzsimons would not agree to try to ram this bill through by 3 June. No doubt that is why the Government has sought instead to have the bill go to the Education and Science Committee. 
The Minister said that one of the main reasons for having the group standards by which we can ram everything through—like 20000 cosmetics in one group standard—is that it would otherwise cost an extra $2 million. Is $2 million not worth it to properly regulate 70000 toxic substances that are presently unregulated? 
When I first read that 70000 toxic substances are not regulated I really did not believe it; I thought it must have been some sort of joke written in the bill. But in fact it is absolutely true. Nick Smith made light of it saying that Sellotape is amongst the 70000 unregulated toxic substances. What he did not mention is that those substances also include pesticides household cleaners paints fly sprays—all sorts of substances that pose a risk to human health. 
Some Labour members might find it all very humorous and take a light-hearted view of the effect of these toxic substances on our health but I assure them that many New Zealanders are extremely concerned about a number of toxic substances we are being exposed to that are basically unregulated. We had the Building Bill and it turned out that virtually no building materials are registered in New Zealand; nor are the Sellotapes the fly sprays the household cleaners and so forth. 
It has been a very long time since the passage of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. One would have hoped that in the past 5 years we would have come up with some very rigorous legislation to ensure that those 70000 substances are managed according to their risk—according to their hazard—and in a way that protects the health of New Zealanders offers consumer protection and protects the environment. 
Regrettably this is not the legislation to do that; this is what I call a regulatory facade—something that makes it look as though we are regulating those substances when we are really doing the absolute minimum possible. We are doing such a minimal job that we would almost be better off with no legislation at all. 
So the Greens have huge concerns about this bill. We will be vigorously present in the select committee trying to strengthen and amend this bill. We are extremely unhappy with it and we hope that somehow in the select committee—which we hope will be given some proper teeth—sense will prevail and we will come up with a risk-based system instead of these fast-tracked group standards. 
BERNIE OGILVY (United Future) 
: 
 I rise to support the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill at its introduction to the House and to support its referral to the Education and Science Committee. In answer to the previous speaker Sue Kedgley I believe that the Education and Science Committee is well qualified well able and has the scientific expertise within it to make a great deal of sense out of the bill that is before us. 
We support this bill for a number of good reasons and we have no concerns as the previous speaker had that 3 June is a rushed deadline. If she had followed what had happened in the previous amendment bill she would know that 70000 notified toxic substances were flagged in that bill to come forward in this bill as I recall the situation. I have been taking quite a bit of interest in this issue. The fact that the previous speaker could say that we may as well operate with no legislation horrifies me and I hope it horrifies other members in the House. How would we like to go into 2006 and beyond with nothing to control the 70000 notified toxic substances? I think it is absurd that we would go on for any length of time into the future without this legislation. We have a good time line and the regime will be in place as I understand it by June 2006. We do need a year for all the regulatory and other matters to be put in place and for the ministries associated with these matters—and the Environmental Risk Management Authority which is the organisation that will make it happen—to prepare. 
I support this bill as United Future does because it underscores the fact that there will be beneficiaries from this regime. The business world will be a beneficiary. I think it is remarkably even-handed of the Minister and the Government to do this bit. The provisions will help businesses. The number of applications that businesses need to submit will be reduced. It takes a hard-hearted politician not to think that that is a good move. We do think it is good and we also realise that the Government will benefit from it. I note that the bill deals with military matters—ammunition no doubt and all sorts of elements associated with the hazardous substances that are attached to the military. That issue will be sorted out at the same time. This legislation will put many user-friendly controls into place. The bill provides a very efficient pathway towards making the transition into the new regime in June 2006. It is with pleasure that United Future supports the referral of this bill to the Education and Science Committee. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I will take just a brief call to support the passage of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approval and Enforcement) Amendment Bill. This is a very good bill. I know that the Minister has worked very diligently as she always does on this legislation. To inject a little humour into the place I will say that there are many people out there listening who possibly think that there is the odd hazardous substance or new organism in this place. I do not refer to the ACT party in any way. I support the bill. It is sound legislation. Uniquely it has almost universal support in the House and that says a lot for the mana with which this bill and the Minister is held by the House. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the National Party to support the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill going to a select committee. But I hasten to add that I certainly will be supporting the motion moved by my colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith that the bill should go to the appropriate select committee—the Local Government and Environment Committee—and not to the Education and Science Committee. I will come back to that shortly. 
If the bill does indeed improve the workability of the original Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act of 1996 as it states it will everybody would be prepared to support it. I was staggered to hear in Nick Smith’s contribution that this is the fourth amendment bill to the original Act that Minister Hobbs has brought into the House in 5 years. I would have thought that the main purpose of any of those bills would be to improve the fundamental workability of the original legislation which was complex indeed. I acknowledge that. When I first came into this place I happened to sit on the smaller subcommittee that worked on the original legislation. The legislation is very very complex. 
It is interesting to note that that bill went to the Local Government and Environment Committee. Therefore I think Nick Smith was absolutely right when he acknowledged in the House today the very reason that this bill has suddenly been rushed on to the Order Paper. The Government hopes to send it to the Education and Science Committee. Whether that motion survives the vote that will be held at the conclusion of this debate will be very interesting. 
That vote will certainly put some focus on United Future yet again. United Future will have to make a decision in the very near future as to whether it will support the Government. We know from the front page of the  
Independent 
 this week that there is a lot of tension and dissension in United Future as the various members realise that most of them are about to give their valedictory speeches. In fact Bernie Ogilvy may already have done that only 10 minutes ago. When that member comes to cast his vote as to where this legislation should go he will need to think very cautiously about that. We know that National will obviously be voting for it to go to the appropriate select committee and we know that ACT and the Greens will vote for it to go to the appropriate select committee. So I say to Bernie Ogilvy that if he wants to have one last stand in this place he should think seriously about whether he will just automatically support the Government and send the bill to the Education and Science Committee. 
I think Bernie Ogilvy also needs to realise that if he does support such a motion he is giving the Government the chance to take that select committee’s eye off its real job. Its real job is to tidy up the debacle that Trevor Mallard has made out of school examinations. It is an absolute mess and thousands of young New Zealanders who are in secondary school at the moment know that their whole school careers are at risk because of the debacle caused by the Hon Trevor Mallard and now supported by the Hon David Benson-Pope. 
That is only one issue before that select committee. Very shortly we will have the issue regarding the wananga to which Trevor Mallard has given half a billion dollars—Mr Mallard has overseen half a billion dollars being given to that wananga—yet he had the audacity to say in the House yesterday that he was not too sure whether he had confidence in its spending. 
So that is another issue that should be going to the Education and Science Committee. Marian Hobbs knows it but she and her colleagues have made a very cunning move today. They have rushed this legislation on to the Order Paper. They will now send it to the Education and Science Committee. Members should note that they will move not to adhere to the Standing Order that gives the select committee 6 months to consider this complex legislation. No no they will force that select committee to take its eye off those other two extremely important issues and to get on to this because they will give the committee members the guillotine treatment and tell them they have to report back before 4 June. 
I say to Bernie Ogilvy that he should make sure when he stands to vote automatically with the Government—like United Future has done now for month after month which is why it is polling at 1 percent; it has been subsumed by the Labour Party and no longer has any identity at all—and when the vote comes on Nick Smith’s amendment that he thinks carefully. If he and the other United Future members vote for this legislation to go to the Education and Science Committee they will be removing the ability of that select committee—which is chaired by the Hon Brian Donnelly and I have no criticism of that at all—to do its job of trying to help out the thousands of young New Zealanders in school at the moment who are about to face the National Certificate of Educational Achievement and the debacle that the Labour Government has created. So I ask Mr Bernie Ogilvy to think carefully. 
I also want to speak about the very aim of the bill. It aims to improve the workability of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act and is designed to reduce costs. If it was in anybody else’s name but that of the Hon Marian Hobbs I might be inclined to accept it. But that Minister has had this portfolio for 5 long years and in the dying days of this decaying Labour Government has put this amendment legislation before the House. I am not convinced that under the stewardship of Marian Hobbs this legislation will reduce costs at all. So I say that the select committee has an important job to do. 
I refer the Minister to a report that she has no doubt received that was prepared by Meat and Wool New Zealand Dairy InSight Deer Industry New Zealand the Foundation for Arable Research and Federated Farmers of New Zealand. It is a detailed report. It tries to examine the cost that the New Zealand farmer faces because of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. I say to Marian Hobbs that we have only to look at the first few paragraphs of the executive summary to know that there is a huge problem with this legislation. That report suggests that the direct costs alone to the farmers of New Zealand in order to obtain their approved handling certificates test certification storage signage and all the other things required by that legislation are $106 million. The report then suggests that a further $92 million can be added from indirect costs associated with the huge amount of record-keeping and documentation and the labour associated with that. 
Farmers are already under enough pressure with the compliance costs that are being heaped on them by the Labour Government. Now a report prepared by recognised organisations representing New Zealand and New Zealand agriculture states that the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act is about to impose on each and every farmer in New Zealand an additional compliance cost of $4222. I accept that there are issues around the safe handling of hazardous organisms but to establish legislation that imposes costs of $4000 on each and every farmer in New Zealand is plainly ridiculous. 
The farmers of this country have enough to cope with. They are coping with a silent Minister of Agriculture Jim Sutton. The only way he gets his name in the paper now is when branches of Federated Farmers around this country move votes of no confidence in him. So I say to Marian Hobbs Labour members and United Future that as they move that this legislation be referred to the incorrect select committee they should think seriously about the costs being imposed now by the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act on New Zealand agriculture. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour—Napier) 
: 
 Having listened to the bombastic vanity of the last speaker I am convinced of just one thing. This bill is a matter of science and should be referred to the Education and Science Committee for consideration. 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 This is very important legislation and both National speakers the Hon Dr Nick Smith who has expertise in these matters and the Hon David Carter who is a practising farmer well versed with what hazardous substances and new organisms are about have stated a very strong case—a very strong case indeed—that because of its importance it should not be going to the Education and Science Committee. The reason for that is that there are precedents where such legislation has gone to other committees. My colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith is moving an amendment along those lines and I think that this House should support that proposition. 
This is no slight at all on the chair of the Education and Science Committee Brian Donnelly. We know that he is a very competent chair. We know that his expertise in education is very very strong—we acknowledge that. But he will have a major task ahead of him with regard to the National Certificate of Educational Achievement and what has been happening over the last few days. It is certainly our view that given the time frame for the report back date of this bill which will be in June the bill would be better served by a committee that does also have expertise in this particular field and that would be able to be expedite and meet the deadlines that the Government wishes to see progressed. So with that in mind it is certainly our view that the bill should go through to the other committee. I just want to make the point very clearly that this is not a reflection on the chair of the Education and Science Committee but is because we know that he has a major task ahead of him—an important task that the whole of New Zealand knows about at this stage. 
There are some major compliance costs associated with this legislation. I refer here to a compliance cost report on the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. This is a draft presentation for Meat and Wool New Zealand Dairy InSight Deer Industry New Zealand the Foundation for Arable Research and Federated Farmers of New Zealand. So a very very comprehensive report has been done. It is dated August 2004 and is a draft report on the challenges facing the sector at that time. I just want to quote from the executive summary of this report. “This project qualifies the on-farm costs of complying with the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act of 1996 in respect to pesticides and dangerous goods commonly used in the arable dairy deer sheep beef and agricultural sectors.” 
I was a farmer for many years in the area of arable farming. I used to grow large acreages of potatoes onions and soy beans along with maize. In those areas we did use some of those products and chemicals. It is important in the agricultural sector that pests are controlled and diseases are kept out but at the same time we acknowledge the risks that are associated with the handling of those products not only to the people who may be selling them but also to the users. I know that Sue Kedgley mentioned that about 70000-odd—I cannot remember the figure exactly—products are on the market that have no certification or registration and she specifically mentioned cosmetics. I do not know much about cosmetics. However I know that the member Sue Kedgley knows a lot about cosmetics so I shall leave it there. I do not want to be outdone on that. I do not like to lose on these things and I know that Sue Kedgley is right up with the play on cosmetics. 
I shall get back to something that I do know about and that of course is the agricultural sector. The report states that the cost of compliance with the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act to the agricultural sector—and that is what it is related to—is $106 million. 
Hon David Carter 
: Direct costs. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: Those are direct costs. On top of that—and this is the point—there is another $321 million of indirect costs for approved handling certificates test certification services storage signage and safety equipment requirements. So a huge compliance cost will be put on the wealth creators of New Zealand the primary industries. As my colleague the Hon David Carter mentioned earlier on during the debate on the Veterinarians Bill—and members may recall that I took a call on that bill—the agricultural sector is the heart and soul of New Zealand and the backbone of the country. I am sure that Gerard Eckhoff from ACT would support that as he sits there and acknowledges my words. He is a farmer so he knows those things. When we look at the direct costs of $106 million and the indirect costs of $321 million we see that significant costs have been identified in the report. 
I think that we need to break those costs down further and ask what they mean on a per farm basis. At the end of the day we need to know what it will cost the individual operator the person who will have to fund this regime off the bottom line as it were in his or her budget. The figure is absolutely staggering; it equates to $4222 per farm. People may think that the economic viability of farming is so great that farmers could just write out a cheque for that sort of compliance cost. However they cannot do that. Those who are practitioners in that field—and Mr Eckhoff is nodding at me—know that I am right. I know that the Hon David Carter who has his sheep farm on Banks Peninsula certainly understands what those costs are. It has been identified in the executive summary—and I shall quote from it—that: “Costs can be divided into different sectors. Dairy sheep and beef are identified by the Environmental Risk Management Authority as commonly using a similar combination of agrochemicals.” and I can understand that. 
When we are dealing with livestock farmers that includes dairy and beef farmers. The summary does not mention deer but I know that livestock farmers have even goats. The Waikato area I represent has a large number of goat farmers producing fibre and milk from goats. We also have huge numbers of deer farms. Deer farming is a significant contributor to the economy in my particular area. I know that Landcorp is New Zealand’s biggest farmer. I was a director of Landcorp for 6 years. In my days as a director with Landcorp we moved into deer farming in a big way as of course we see here with regard to the dairy sheep and beef sector. The products and chemicals used in that sector are different from what arable farmers would be using. In my experience in the arable farming sector especially in relation to horticultural crops— 
Hon David Carter 
: Potatoes! 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: Yes and potato growers. Potatoes are grown in the Matamata area because of the soil type and other agricultural crops are being grown: potatoes onions pumpkins for export buttercup squash and the sorts of crops that we export. That is what is important here. This is where the economy of the country is. These are the wealth creators of New Zealand. These are the people who are generating the money for the country. 
Finally I say this is important legislation. National will support this bill although as I indicated earlier not its referral to the select committee that the Government wants it to be referred to. 
Hon TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Minister of State) 
: 
 I rise to support the bill. It is good legislation and I commend the Minister for bringing it before the House. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 113 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; Green Party 9; United Future 7; Progressive 2. 
Noes 1 
Maori Party 1. 
Bill read a first time. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I move  
That the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill be referred to the Education and Science Committee 
referred to Education and Science Committee 
 for consideration and that the committee finally report the bill to the House by 3 June 2005. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Just before I put that motion I tell members I have an amendment in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith. It is an amendment to omit the words: “Education and Science Committee” and substitute the words: “Local Government and Environment Committee” and to omit the words: “and that the committee report the bill finally to the House by 3 June 2005.” 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Those are actually two distinct issues. The first issue is in terms of the select committee that will consider the bill and the second one is in respect of the timing. I appreciate the help from the Clerk’s Office but it seems to me that the House should be able to consider those two issues separately. In terms of the issue of which is the appropriate select committee for the bill to go to of course the original hazardous substances bill was dealt with by that select committee and of course the scrutiny of the Environmental Risk Management Authority is with that select committee. That is one issue but the issue of the timing is a separate issue. I seek your guidance on the amendments being placed as I originally tabled them with the Chair as two separate motions of amendment. They are indeed separate issues and parties may have different views about the rushed timetable compounded by the issue of which is the appropriate committee to deal with this important bill. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I do not see any problem with that. I have the wording as it is but if there is no objection there is no reason why I cannot put the two motions. The first then is that the bill be referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the words “Education and Science Committee” be omitted and the words “Local Government and Environment Committee” be substituted. 
Ayes 41 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 5; Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 73 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 7; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The time has come— 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am aware that members are very keen to see the progress of this very important legislation as they have all said so. I seek leave for the House to complete the votes on this bill. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is. 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. According to Speaker’s ruling 60/1 once a vote has commenced it has to be completed. We have commenced voting on Marian Hobbs’ motion which has been amended. We are voting on the motion to refer the bill to a select committee and fact that it has been amended by Nick Smith in an attempt to try to delay the House from rising does not I think bear any relation to the matter. The Speaker’s ruling is quite clear. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I understand that we can complete the vote on the amendment but not the vote. So we can complete the closure but we cannot complete the vote. [ 
Interruption 
] I am sorry—we can complete the vote that we are on. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The vote we have just completed— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: There were two votes. We have completed one of them. The second one is that the bill finally be reported to the House by 3 June. We have completed the vote. The time has come for me to leave the Chair. 
Debate Interrupted. 
The House adjourned at 6.02 p.m.