Volume 616 Week 51 - Wednesday 17 March 2004 
Volume 616 Week 51 - Wednesday 17 March 2004 
[Volume:616;Page:11701] 
Wednesday 17 March 2004 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Obituaries 
Sir William Pickering 
Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 We have just been advised through the National Aeronautics and Space Administration website that Sir William Pickering has just passed away. Sir William was one of the finest scientific minds of the last 50 years. He made an enormous contribution to the development of the US space agency and is regarded widely as one of the titans of science. He was a New Zealander. He was educated at Havelock—the same town by chance that saw Lord Rutherford educated. I move  
That the House note the death of Sir William Pickering and extend its sincere sympathy to his family. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 The Government would certainly want to place on record its sorrow at the passing of Sir William Pickering an outstanding New Zealander who made his name in science—in particular in space science—in the United States. As the Leader of the Opposition has said it is a remarkable coincidence that Havelock Primary educated not only Lord Rutherford who went on to split the atom but also Sir William Pickering. He did his university study initially in New Zealand before going to the United States and what I had not appreciated until I met him at a function in Los Angeles at the end of 2002 was that after studying in the States he returned to New Zealand hoping to work in his homeland. He came back at a time of considerable depression and New Zealand could not find work for him. He returned to the United States and of course went on to build a glittering international career in space science. So I think it is important to record here today what an inspirational figure and what a great New Zealander he was and to communicate to his family our sorrow at his passing. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First supports those words of tribute to one of New Zealand’s most distinguished sons. William Pickering was probably better known internationally than in his home country although it is fitting that in the past few years his outstanding exploits have been more publicised. Therefore it is fitting that this House pay tribute to his outstanding achievements. We in New Zealand First pass on our sympathy to his family. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 United Future wants to join other parties in expressing sympathy upon the death of Sir William Pickering. I want to say as a Wellington member of Parliament that the association of Sir William with Wellington College which was his former high school is one that is deeply treasured by that college. In fact when Sir William visited the college last year he was an inspiration to today’s students who were struck by the essential humility of the man his apparent nondescriptness yet his extraordinary sense of achievement. I think he inspired those young men to believe that anything is possible and that if one’s goals are high enough one will achieve them. He was a great New Zealander and he is one in whom we should all have considerable pride. I join others in expressing sympathy on his sad passing but I also rejoice in the contribution he was able to make in life. 
ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 On behalf of the Greens I join in expressing our condolences to his family and endorse the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition Don Brash. It is indeed a sad day when a New Zealander who has had such an impact on the international stage dies. Helen Clark’s words remind us of how important it is that we provide opportunities for those New Zealanders in our own country rather than allowing them to export their considerable skills and talents to other parts of the world. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the ACT party as it is appropriate that on the passing of such a distinguished New Zealander the House make it unanimous. I join the House in agreeing with the words expressed by the Prime Minister the Leader of the Opposition and other party leaders. 
Motion agreed to. 
Points of Order 
Law Commission Reports—Availability 
DAIL JONES (Junior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I raise a matter of procedure that is of some concern to New Zealand First. It is with regard to the presentation of Law Commission reports. We were informed that we could only get a copy at 1 o’clock yesterday. It was 372 pages long. I see that one party had a press release about the report out by 11.51 a.m. yesterday although it was embargoed until 1 p.m. I would ask that these reports are distributed to all members of all parties equally and that some are not preferred over others. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: They are in the Bills Office. If the member wants to go there to get a copy he can have one. 
DAIL JONES 
: But my point is that some members got it at about 11 o’clock 10 o’clock or 9 o’clock so why was New Zealand First able to get it only at 1 o’clock? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If that was the case then people got it from the Law Commission. It was tabled yesterday and it is available in the Bills Office. 
Questions to Ministers 
Genetically Modified Wheat—Monsanto 
1. JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister for Food Safety 
: Is she satisfied that there is adequate information available to New Zealanders who wish to make an informed scientific submission on Monsanto’s application to Food Standards Australia New Zealand to approve food derived from genetically modified Roundup-tolerant wheat for sale in New Zealand? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister for Food Safety) 
: 
 Yes. The application is at the initial assessment stage—stage one. The initial assessment requires the applicant to include information of studies and tests relevant to the application and the product. It is a four-stage process which enables public consultation in two of the stages and takes up to 1 year to complete. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: How does the Minister expect New Zealanders to comply with the authority’s specific request for comment on the scientific and food safety aspects of the application when they have been told they have to come to Wellington at their own expense and then pay $25 just to look at the only New Zealand copy of the scientific data on which the application is based; and why in this modern world can it not be placed on the website? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The reason it is not placed on the website is that the application is about a foot high. It is available to members of the public here in Wellington. If they would like to come in and photocopy it they could have every bit of information they like. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Did the Minister or any of her officials or anyone else representing New Zealand ever agree to this method of making the scientific data available so that only people who could afford an air fare to Wellington could see it or is this just another way that key decisions affecting the New Zealand public have been delegated to unaccountable unelected overseas authorities? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The process that is used in any application has been in place for a long time. I am surprised that if the member is so concerned about the process she has not raised it in all the time that we have had Food Standards Australia New Zealand in operation which is a number of years. It is a four-part process. It is open and transparent. There are two stages in which the public can be part of that consultation. This very initial stage is not about whether there should be approval for this assessment but whether it should even proceed with a food standard. 
Nanaia Mahuta 
: Can the Minister outline the time frame for dealing with the applications? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Yes. The time frame as I said in my initial answer can take up to 1 year. Unlike the information that was put out by the Greens—where they said this was a hasty process; a rather rushed process—there are four stages to it. It takes up to a year and it is the same time frame that has been taken on every food standard that we set. It is no different for this one than it is for example for the standard that is being drawn up for country-of-origin labelling. 
Sue Kedgley 
: How can the public have confidence in the safety of genetically engineered food if they are not able to readily access the research the studies and the tests on which their safety assessments are based? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: As I said there are four parts to this process. There is the ability to see the scientific risk assessment after the public consultation and after the draft assessment report has been drawn up. Then there is further public consultation. They get to see all the scientific assessment that is being prepared. I suggest that the Greens look on the website at how to make a submission. It sets out the four-part process exactly what happens and what scientific evidence will be available at what stage. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Is the Minister saying that because there is one later stage where the public can have input that this stage is not a real consultation but only a sham or is she saying that the data will actually be on the website for the second stage? Anyway does she think it is acceptable that we have learnt today that the sole copy of the scientific data which submitters have been advised can be inspected only in Wellington will not be in the country for another week—7 days before submissions close? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That question was too long and had too many parts to it. The Minister can comment briefly. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The process is not a sham. It is the same process we have used to set all our food standards since we have had the joint agency in operation. 
Civil Defence and Conservation Ministers—Confidence 
2.  
Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she have confidence in the Minister of Conservation and the Minister of Civil Defence; if so why? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes because they are both hard-working and conscientious Ministers. 
Dr Don Brash 
: How can she say her Ministers are conscientious and hard-working when they have both sat on their hands and done nothing to intervene to prevent the imminent lahar from Mount Ruapehu’s crater lake despite warnings from the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management several engineering reports and Department of Conservation reports stating that the lahar will be twice the size of the one that killed 151 people at Tangiwai and could now happen as early as November this year? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Contrary to the assertion in the member’s question the advice the Government has from the Director of Civil Defence and Emergency Management is that the set of measures that is now being put in place including the lifting of the State Highway 49 bridge adequately addresses the risk-to-life issue while recognising of course that such risks are not totally predictable and cannot be eliminated in a dynamic environment. A lot has been done. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Why did she and the other members of the Cabinet policy committee reject the advice of the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management that said that this risk to life “is above that which society would consider acceptable especially given that practical means of reducing the risk by intervening at the crater rim are available” and will she now be accepting responsibility for any loss of life that occurs as the result of the inaction of herself the Minister of Conservation and the Minister of Civil Defence? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: That advice was given I understand before the decision was made to raise the State Highway 49 bridge. Since that time the Cabinet policy committee has put a great deal of thought and time into working with officials on the issues and the advice we have had from the Director of Civil Defence and Emergency Management is as I have stated—that the range of measures being put in place reduce the risks to an acceptable level. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I wonder whether the Prime Minister has contemplated consulting Dr Brash and asking him to speak with his previous Maori affairs spokesperson whose family of course gave the national park to this country without any charge whatsoever in an endeavour to obtain some sort of rapprochement between Tuwharetoa and the Government’s concerns. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I thank the member for his suggestion. I had not considered that course of action because in recent weeks Dr Brash has shown he has not the slightest intention of taking any notice of anything Georgina te Heuheu says. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Did the Minister of Civil Defence give the same advice to her and her Cabinet that he gave to the House yesterday and I quote: “The engineering advice that this Government has accepted says exactly that by interfering now we will make the future possibility of a lahar greater.’’; and in view of the fact that the engineering report says the exact opposite to that why does she continue to protect that Minister? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The Cabinet policy committee in its prolonged consideration of this matter in recent weeks looked at a number of intervention options. I want to stress that all that matters to us is that we have in place the best set of preparations we can. Therefore we took advice on whether a trench should be built on whether there should be sluicing on whether there should be siphoning and on whether explosives should be used to trigger a lahar. In the end we were not convinced of the efficacy of any of those measures. I might point out that on the construction of a trench the advice we had was that it would probably make a future lahar bigger and therefore more dangerous. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How does she reconcile her enthusiasm for photo opportunities on the 50th anniversary of the Tangiwai disaster and with recent flood victims in the Manawatu with her Government’s refusal to take the common-sense approach recommended by the Ruapehu District Council and by the Manawatu Horizons Regional Council of doing a very small amount of work at the crater rim; and does the Prime Minister put greater weight on cultural and environmental sensitivity than on the views of the local people whose lives and property are at risk by this Government’s inaction? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: What the Government has put weight on is properly weighing all the options. I note that at an earlier point the Minister—and I want to pay him credit here—while himself favouring the engineering options said that one could not ignore the issues of the iwi and one could not ignore the fact that the crater was in a national park. I want to assure the member that neither of those two issues would have stood in the way of intervention had we been persuaded that intervention was the right thing to do. We have not been persuaded and we have it on the advice of the Director of Civil Defence and Emergency Management that all reasonable measures that could be put in place have been. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why in the last 4 years have the previous Minister Sandra Lee and the current Minister Chris Carter consistently stated that the issues of environmental and cultural sensitivity were the major reasons for not proceeding with the engineering works but lo and behold after Don Brash’s Orewa speech suddenly the tune changes and there are a lot of other reasons why the Government will not do the necessary engineering works? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have warned members about interjecting while questions are being asked. Every member has the right to ask his or her question in silence and I caution the member concerned. She knows who she is. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I repeat that the uppermost consideration in the Government’s mind is what is the best way of dealing with this dynamic natural environment. What I would say is that we have put in place a lot of measures that have now led the Director of Civil Defence and Emergency Management to back entirely what the Government is doing. I might say that we have acted and file memos in the Department of Conservation show that the previous National Minister Dr Smith kicked the issue off until after the 1999 election. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave of the House to table the full report that was prepared on my instructions as Minister of Conservation in 1999 and that stated it would be at least 5 years before there was any risk and there was ample time to make a considered decision on the lahar. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I raise this point of order in the spirit of Standing Order 361 which deals with the issue of a Minister quoting from a document. I realise the Prime Minister was not quoting directly from the document but as the Minister has said there is now engineering evidence to support the Government’s view and given the great interest in the matter I invite the Government to table this engineering evidence. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Noting the official advice that it is now impossible to clear the National Parks Act and Resource Management Act provisions with the lake filling so quickly I wish to seek leave for the Ruapehu Crater Lake Lahar Prevention Works Empowering Bill in my name to be placed at the top of the Order Paper on the next members’ day and for the House to give leave for that bill to be taken through all stages. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. What is the procedure if a Cabinet Minister comes into the House and starts quoting information to the House that is then not made available to the House—not allotted to the House in evidence? Do you see my point? The Prime Minister is relying on a piece of information that she has there. We notice that there is a green Cabinet paper in the pile of documents she has in front of her. We saw her pull it out and read from it. Why has it not been tabled? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well the member should have made a point of order at that time. If the Prime Minister was quoting from an official document then members can ask to have it tabled. That is perfectly in order. The sheaf of notes she used to answer the question do not have to be tabled. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask that the Prime Minister does table the green Cabinet paper that she was reading from during her answer. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am only too happy to table the document because I understand it has already been released to the Opposition under the Official Information Act. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is the Prime Minister tabling the actual document? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am tabling the minute which is what I read from. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Prime Minister will table the minute she read from. 
Document not tabled. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think for clarity it was the technical report that was quoted. I tabled the Cabinet minute yesterday. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There are too many points of order and people do not know the Standing Orders. The Prime Minister was asked as she was quoting from a document whether she would be happy to table that document which she has done. As far as her tabling the rest of the sheaf of notes is concerned that is not within the Standing Orders. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. What we have just seen is a very good example of a total waste of Parliament’s and taxpayers’ time and money. [ 
Interruption 
] Points of order should be heard in silence. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is perfectly correct and people will be leaving the Chamber. Points of order will be heard in silence. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: My point is simply this. Parliamentary question time is very valuable time. There are other parties in this Parliament that are sincere about getting information out in front of the public—not just constant point-scoring and wasting everybody’s time. That was a very good illustration. I want to know Mr Speaker whether you are prepared to give some sort of ruling as some sort of guidance for the National Party in particular as to how its members might better order their time in this House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Although the point is an interesting one if I were to rule everything out in that regard I would love it because it would make question time very very simple and very short and I would be able to get my afternoon tea more quickly. 
Social Development Ministry—Legal Action 
3.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: Is the Ministry of Social Development contemplating legal action against any individual or organisation at present; if so against whom and what for? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 The Ministry of Social Development has referred 1124 cases to the courts in the year to date. The ministry prosecutes benefit fraud wherever it is possible and appropriate to do so. In accordance with its zero tolerance policy on staff fraud the ministry prosecutes staff frauds in every case and seeks to recover all funds taken. In spite of the substantially improved detection capability which might be expected to have thrown up an increased level of fraud the number of staff frauds in the ministry has decreased from 18 in 2000-01 to two in the current financial year to date out of a total of more than 5000 employees. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does his ministry intend to take action against  
CIO 
 magazine because in an email to all his ministry’s information technology staff the chief executive officer Peter Hughes stated that he was “going to deal to it and going to take action over it” referring to an article published by the magazine that described the ministry’s SWIFTT computer system as “so complex that its outer layers are so fragile and the level of risk is great.”? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I anticipated that the member may want to go in this direction because of a press release put out just before question time. I want to reassure the House that the mainframe has been replaced within the Ministry of Social Development. It has been replaced so that the ministry has sufficient capacity. It is reliable. There is a modular plan to upgrade software through the system. A governance process has been in place since we have been in Government. There is absolutely no doubt that this system will deliver for beneficiaries and superannuitants. I would urge the member not to cause concern amongst those groups. They will get their money. The computer system is one that is reliable. 
Georgina Beyer 
: What action in addition to legal action did the Ministry of Social Development take in relation to the $1.9 million staff fraud for which the offender was sentenced last Friday? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: As soon as the chief executive officer of the Ministry of Social Development knew of the fraud last year he immediately moved to freeze and seize the person’s assets and dismissed her from the Ministry of Social Development. He introduced new controls to the ministry in response to the methods employed in that fraud conducted a Ministry of Social Development - wide audit to ensure him that no other similar frauds were under way and commissioned an independent and external review of the ministry’s system of controls in the light of that fraud. The results of those reviews were released last week and provide assurances that the ministry has a good system of controls along with recommendations for improvement that the ministry has implemented or is implementing in full. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is the Minister concerned that the indecision and costs around the upgrading of the ministry’s benefit computer system have all the hallmarks of another computer system in the recent political past known as INCIS in that the SWIFTT system has not been and is not documented hence no one person can claim to know exactly what it does including the Minister himself; if not will he make the documentation available to the House and prove that my question is otherwise from what I say? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: No I do have confidence in the system used by the Ministry of Social Development. I am afraid that the member may be misled in relation to this debate. When we became the Government there was substantial debate about the computer system. The Government replaced the system. There is now a modularised approach to how we are upgrading the software. There is no risk to the system. People will get paid. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: If that is the truth would the Minister please let us have the documentation to support his answer to my last question and does he not agree that modifying the SWIFTT system over a period of 5 years would be a waste of time given the likely advances in technology that would occur over such a time frame; if so why has he not already ordered its replacement and if not what information has he received to suggest that a 5-year patch-up job is appropriate—and could we please have the documents tabled? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There are three questions there. The Minister may answer two. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: As I mentioned before we have replaced the system. It has been upgraded. What we are dealing with now is a modular approach to rewriting software. For example as members of the House know come Budget time we will be announcing major changes to the benefit system. That will require an upgrade and change in the software to be able to handle what is happening. So I am afraid that the member has simply been misled. I am perfectly happy for the Ministry of Social Development to brief the member directly on this matter. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to table the March 2004 publication of  
CIO 
 and also the Peter Hughes threat that he sent to all staff as to what he would do. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Community Education Courses—Members of Parliament 
4.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education) 
: Is he aware of any community education providers that may have enrolled at least one member of Parliament in a community education course; if so how will he establish whether that enrolment met the criteria for Government funding? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education)) 
: 
 I am aware that Mr Ron Mark told the House yesterday that he had filled out some forms offering a course of language tuition at the Eastern Institute of Technology. 
Hon Member 
: In English? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Yes in English as the member inquired. The Tertiary Education Commission is investigating the Eastern Institute of Technology and will hold discussions with it regarding the validity of its student enrolment data. 
Hon Bill English 
: Will the Minister be applying the same kind of auditing interest to Tairawhiti Polytechnic and has that polytech been instructed by any of his agencies to remove any reference to the singalong course from its website and to answer telephone queries from journalists and the public by denying that it ran the course last year even though he paid it $11 million to do so? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I am afraid that the last figure the member has put into play is something he must have made up himself because no one else can find that figure. In relation to— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister can say that the member was inaccurate. That is the way he should have said it rather than in the way he said it. I ask him to withdraw and apologise and then to start the answer again. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I withdraw and apologise. The information I think is inaccurate. I advise the member that during the assessment of Tairawhiti Polytechnic’s interim profile late last year some issues were identified in its category 5.1 provision. That caused the Tertiary Education Commission to conditionally approve the institution’s interim profile while these matters were worked through last year. The issues related to specific anomalies in a range of programmes around the Maori studies department concerning documentation relating to course start dates and end dates. To resolve that matter Tairawhiti Polytechnic has agreed to an external audit. The terms of reference for this audit are currently under discussion. The Tertiary Education Commission is proposing that the audit cover classification 5.1 enrolments which are the enrolments the member is talking about. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: What requirements are there upon a tertiary education provider when claiming enrolments for funding purposes and how have those requirements increased recently? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: A provider has to follow funding guide requirements. Under recent changes part of the enrolment procedure for a student is to get a national student number. In doing that evidence of identity and eligibility has to—and I emphasise “has to”—be established if the student is to receive funding. The Tertiary Education Commission also does random audits to ensure compliance with that process. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Does the Minister believe that it is appropriate for recruitment officers for tertiary education institutions to be signing up every Tom Dick or Harry at hamburger bars late at night and that the Government should pay for every signature those recruiters get regardless of whether Tom Dick Harry or Ron Mark finishes the course; and is that a good use of taxpayers’ money? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I understand it was a Ron on this particular occasion and no of course I do not—but I note also that neither does the institute of technology in the Hawke’s Bay. The institute itself has said in a press statement that it does not recruit students in that way and that if that did happen it would condemn it. The institute is itself trying to find out whether this matter has any basis in terms of staff doing that kind of thing. I would say that Mr Mark is confirmed as being enrolled although to say any more about that would be to indicate things that perhaps Mr Mark would not want to have discussed. But I say that members who enrol in these courses—I am advised by the Eastern Institute of Technology—receive immediately in the mail material that tells them how the course will run and what they are required to do. I suspect that Mr Mark received that and maybe he would like to tell us why he did not complete the course. 
Deborah Coddington 
: Is it correct that the Minister received a complaint about a tertiary education provider called the Hikurangi Learning Centre that alleged that the chief executive officer Sarah Burkhardt was falsifying the attendance records of students by claiming for students who had dropped out of the courses and that he has known about that since December last year; if so what confidence can this House have in him in light of his recent answers that rorts like that will be immediately investigated? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Complaints about providers are made all the time. When we get complaints we immediately investigate to see whether there is any substance to them and we act. There is no way that this Government unlike the previous Government will allow money to be misspent in any way. We want to spend it in a way that advances education in this country. 
Hon Bill English 
: When the Minister said publicly that some community education courses were “of debatable quality” did he mean twilight golf coffee making the singalong course all three of those or other courses that we do not know about yet? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: One of the things that the member may like to know is that the— 
Hon Bill English 
: Just answer the question. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I am just going to walk through the twilight golf course for example and tell—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am actually interested in the answer and I cannot hear it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There is far too much senseless interjecting. I will hear the Minister’s answer in relative silence. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: All these courses take place within the community adult education field. The Tairawhiti Polytechnic offers a course of 3 hours in total for six nights on golf for beginners essentially and it attracts $40 per student for providing that course. The Tairawhiti Polytechnic is considering whether it should do that course again. In relation to the course that is called “singalong” by the member opposite the Eastern Institute of Technology has today outlined publicly in the media how the course runs the material it mails to people and the quality checks it puts in place. The member may like to take that course because the course at $225 per student is aimed at getting people into Maori language. In relation to people who may well get a qualification for working in a restaurant that may include something like knowing how to make themselves a very good cup of latte—which undoubtedly Mr English would like to drink—once again those courses are of use to people in terms of getting a job. In each case I urge the member to consider the courses in question but I as Minister am very interested in making sure that all courses make a contribution. When I find them to be dubious they will not happen any more. 
Deborah Coddington 
: On what date did he refer the alleged fraud by the Hikurangi Learning Centre which is provider-owned by a Maori trust that advised him and Te PuniKokiri on Maori involvement in tertiary education to the police? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I did not bring the details of that particular case with me but I am happy to provide them to the member if she approaches me later. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Is the Minister suggesting to the House that he refers so many of these courses to the police that he cannot remember them? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member knows that is not a point of order. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In his answer to the question the Minister said that he was happy to provide the details to the member if she asked him later. I am interested in those details as well. If Ministers do have such details and are happy to provide them it is normal for them to provide the details to the library so that all members can see them. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: In terms of written questions that is the case but as far as the offer the Minister has made is concerned I understand that he said he would get the details and give them to the member concerned. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You have intervened very quickly for the Minister but I just ask you to reflect on your own former career as a Minister. Referring a matter to the police is not a question that happens idly and the suggestion the Minister gave to the House that he could not remember whether he had referred that case to the police is just not credible. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: It is often the case that Mr Prebble has not repeated exactly what members have said in the House and he has done that in this case. I said that if the member would like details about that particular institution I am happy to provide them. I did not say anything about the police. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will rule on the point of order now. As far as I am concerned that matter is not a point of order. The answer the Minister gave is open to criticism but that is not a matter for a point of order. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We have an interesting situation here. The Minister was asked a very exact question: on what date did he refer the case to the police? He is now saying that if the member wants details he will let her know later. What is the point of having question time? I presume that the real answer is that he has not referred the case to the police and that is the one piece of information he does not want us to know. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: We need the question to be repeated accurately as well. It was about when the Minister did something and he replied quite properly—since this was a case that was not part of the principal question—that he did not have the information with him. If the member thinks Ministers come down to this House with every possible piece of information for every possible supplementary question about every possible course in the country then he should realise we would all look like Richard Northey coming in here. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is criticising the Minister’s answer. That is not a point of order. 
Hon Bill English 
: What is now the Minister’s position—is it what he said 4 days ago that a number of these courses are “of dubious quality” or is it what he said today that they are “valuable and contribute to employment”; and what is his opinion of an institution that signs up stray members of the public in hamburger bars late at night gets paid for a course and does not make sure that the MP completes that course? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Anybody who signs up Ron Mark in a hamburger bar without him fully knowing what he is signing up for and so on would take great exception to that and so would the institution—as it has said it has. The institution does not regard that as proper behaviour. I was reminding the member previously that before he jumps in and condemns these courses as his predecessor Max Bradford did he may like to know what they are. Some courses are however of dubious quality and I have said that where they exist they will not exist for long. 
Taxation—Corporate Tax 
5.  
CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What reports has he received about the impact of a cut in the corporate tax rate to 30c? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Apart from a rough fiscal cost of $500 million I am advised that the principal beneficiaries will be offshore investors for whom company tax is the final tax paid as opposed to local shareholders and businesses for whom it is in effect a withholding tax. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: What would be the effect of cutting the corporate rate to 30c while retaining a top personal rate of 39c? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It has often been said that the primary effect of creating a large gap between the two rates would be to create “a big incentive for people to register companies to run their business rather than trading in their own name and that significantly increases compliance costs.” My source for that advice is Dr Brash’s interview with  
The Australian  
only last month. 
Dr Don Brash 
: How does the Minister reconcile that answer—and indeed his released statement today that if he cut the corporate tax rate “the entire benefit would end up in foreign hands”—with the OECD’s advice that cutting the corporate tax rate for foreign and domestic investors would be advantageous for the New Zealand economy? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I can do so a great deal easier than I can the member’s own statement today that the priority is to cut the corporate tax rate and that for low to middle income families when only a year ago he said that we should cut the top personal tax rate only. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am getting sick of this yelling and shouting. The Minister can give an answer. There is plenty of time for more supplementary questions and the Minister will address the question. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think that some of the frustration on this side of the House comes about because Ministers and not just this Minister can make highly controversial statements that are of a completely political nature attack-wise—I expect that all comments in this House are of a political nature—before there is any intervention from the Chair. For the Minister to say that he could reconcile his answer to the question a great deal better than the member who asked it and go on to talk about Dr Brash’s comments is completely unacceptable and will lead to disorder. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It will not lead to disorder because people will leave if they start saying things like that. The member did not make a point of order at all. If we take politics out of this Parliament I really wonder what is left in it. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Government does not regard the OECD as the repository of all wisdom on these matters. The fact is that in an imputation system such as New Zealand has when one cuts the corporate tax rate the benefit goes very largely to foreign owners of shares and to foreign owners of New Zealand businesses. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Does the Minister agree that a cut in the corporate tax rate will provide both an incentive for shareholders to retain and build the capital of their companies by allowing the after-tax returns to go to shareholders and encourage both New Zealand and overseas investment in our companies? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No I do not because one of the features of New Zealand’s economy is that there is a large payout of post-tax dividends as opposed to retained earnings. All that would do therefore is increase the earnings that go overseas and reduce the amount of imputation credits available for the payment of subsequent personal tax. 
Rodney Hide 
: In light of the Minister’s answer that it is better to keep the company rate and the top personal rate of income tax the same does he now regret opening up a gap by lifting the top rate of personal tax to 39c and does he not agree that the best policy would be to drop the company rate of tax and the top rate of personal income tax to 30c so that the economy will prosper? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The member has totally misquoted what I said in answer to the first part of the question. The point I was making was that Dr Brash said only a month ago that there should not be a large gap and today he announced a policy to widen it. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There seems to be two rules because whenever Opposition members get up to make a point of order or to ask a question we get shouted down and you do not seem to do anything. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. I will not have that sort of comment made in this House. The member will give his point of order and that is it. It will be heard in silence. 
Rodney Hide 
: The Minister in no way addressed the question I put which was whether he regrets lifting the top personal tax rate. I assume by his silence that he must do but I would much prefer to hear it from his own mouth. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: That part of the question depended on the first part of the question which was factually inaccurate. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I made a point of order and I would like you to rule on whether Dr Cullen addressed it because in my view he came nowhere close to it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister took issue with the basis of the member’s question. If members put facts into their questions they invite that. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is a matter of public record that Michael Cullen as Minister of Finance put the top personal tax rate up to 39c in the dollar. He is now trying to hide from that fact and not answer the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No he is not and there is a general debate after question time during which any comment like that can be made. I say once again—be seated while I am on my feet—that the Minister took issue with the basis of the member’s question. If members put facts into their questions they invite that. The Minister is entitled to do that. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The ACT party does not have a slot in the general debate. I ask you then for some guidance. I will put the question directly: does he now regret putting it up to the top rate of 39c? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Occasionally parties do not have a slot in the general debate but that is not the issue here. If the member wants to ask that question as a further supplementary he can. There is the ability to do that within the allocation that that party has been given. If the member wants to ask that he can but the Minister addressed the previous question. 
Terrorism—Residency and Citizenship 
6.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: Is he confident that no potential terrorists have been granted New Zealand residency or citizenship since the year 2000? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I am advised that current immigration policy and procedures provide rigorous checks on character and background for all people applying for residence. I am also advised that the Director of Security has not made a recommendation for revoking permanent residence since the year 2000. However as the director of the Security Intelligence Service has said neither he nor anyone else will ever be able to guarantee that New Zealand will never be the victim or the source of an act of terrorism. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why were the three foreigners who were turned down for citizenship and described by Security Intelligence Service head Richard Woods as “clearly individuals of security concern” allowed to gain residence in New Zealand; and why on earth are they being allowed to stay here in this country? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: As to the reason the member should go directly to the head of the Security Intelligence Service. As far as citizenship is concerned that is a matter for my colleague. As far as residence is concerned I have asked for a report from officials on the cases that have been raised to see whether in fact there are any outstanding matters that we need to consider. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We have a problem here. That Minister and the staff in his department are in charge of immigration and the various applications of people who come to this country. To ask me to go to the head of the Security Intelligence Service is simply wrong. As the Minister he surely must know for the simple reason that he would be privy to information himself as his department must be now. He must know what the answer is and he should be required to answer me in this House. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: The member asked for the reasons why the director declined citizenship. That is not something that is part of my responsibility as Minister of Immigration. That is for the Minister of Internal Affairs. The responsibility for citizenship and passports is not the responsibility of the Minister of Immigration which is the point I was trying to make to that member. My responsibility is around residency which is why I answered as I did the second part of the question. The member asked about residency which is an immigration issue. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Taking the point of order further I asked him how those people gained residency which is a responsibility that he as a Minister has. If he had fulfilled that responsibility properly he would know about the other information which he surely should have been privy to before any grant of residency was given. 
Keith Locke 
: The Security Intelligence Service has a recommendatory role to the Minister of Immigration. It does not make any decisions itself. So the Minister should be at least in receipt of the recommendation or the content of it and be able to comment on that question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the Minister had been asked whether he had been advised by the Security Intelligence Service then he could answer that question if he wished to do so. That is a perfectly legitimate question. When I heard the Minister’s reply to the member’s question I regarded the first part as not strictly an answer to the question. In the second part of the answer in which he said he was investigating the matter and had asked for a report he addressed that part of the question. 
Lynne Pillay 
: What checks are undertaken when any person applies for residence in New Zealand? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: All persons applying for New Zealand residence have undergone a number of screening processes for health and character. Where the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service has concerns about an applicant it has the ability to comment on the person’s application. However the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service may at no stage recommend that the permanent resident status of cases such as those that are being mentioned at the moment should be reviewed or revoked. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Will the Minister following this investigation consider revoking the residency of the three people who in the words of the director are a security concern and could be using New Zealand as a “safe haven” to “lie low” given the enormous risks of international terrorism? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: There are two ways that revocation could be considered. The first is on direct advice from the Director of Security. I have spoken to him today and he has advised that he is not making a recommendation of revocation. The second matter might be whether in fact people have given false information as part of their residency application. That is part of the reason we are investigating the applications that were made for residency. 
Keith Locke 
: How will the Minister assure us that in these three cases the SIS is not acting as political police and restricting the democratic right of well-settled law-abiding refugees to get a passport and travel overseas to promote democracy in their original homeland even if a particularly repressive Government such as the Algerian Government gets upset about this and puts some pressure on the New Zealand Government? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister cannot answer the question in terms of the SIS because he is not the Minister concerned. He can answer it in terms of his own portfolio if he wishes to comment. 
Keith Locke 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can I rephrase that question? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member had quite a good opportunity to put his question. I am pretty generous with the member. If the question is very brief and to the point he can do it. This is one exception that I am making. 
Keith Locke 
: Can the Minister assure us on the basis of the information he has received from the SIS on these three cases— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is it. The member has asked a question and the Minister can answer that part of the question. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: The only information I have had from the director of the SIS is his recommendation that the residency applications not be revoked. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: What advice can the Minister give the House regarding the possibility that there may be other people in New Zealand who have previously been the subject of such a recommendation from the director which has not been acted upon by the Minister of Internal Affairs at the time and who may hold permanent residence in New Zealand notwithstanding the fact that applications for citizenship have been revoked; is he acting on those cases as well? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: The first point I want to repeat is that citizenship is not the responsibility of the Minister of Immigration. The only point that I can advance relating to residency status is that there has been no request for revocation from the Security Intelligence Service since the year 2000 which was the time of the member’s question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why has the Minister not read  
New Zealand: The Right Choice 
 an Immigration Service administration document that I am holding? Chapter 5.5 sets out what his responsibility as Minister is with regard to security matters; in that light does he have confidence in the system of the New Zealand Immigration Service given that the head of the SIS has publicly identified New Zealand as a potential safe haven for terrorists; and given that he has only four staff involved in investigating immigration fraud and corruption how can he give us an assurance that in New Zealand we are safe? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: There are a number of questions in there. But can I repeat what the director of the SIS says which is that he can give no guarantee and nor can anyone else that we will not be the victims of terrorism because that is the way of things at the moment. But we do our very very best to keep New Zealand and New Zealanders safe and secure. 
Paid Parental Leave—Evaluation 
7.  
HELEN DUNCAN (Labour) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Labour 
: What were the key findings of the Department of Labour’s evaluation of the paid parental leave scheme and what actions is she taking following those findings? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Associate Minister of Labour) 
: 
 The evaluation of the current 12 weeks’ paid leave shows positive feedback from both employers and employees. The scheme has increased employees’ well-being and their feelings of being appreciated while employers have benefited from better staff retention. Following this I was delighted to announce with the Prime Minister recently that the eligibility and duration of paid parental leave is to be extended. 
Helen Duncan 
: Will the Minister outline to the House how the paid parental leave scheme is being extended? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The leave period will extend from 12 to 14 weeks phased in over 2 years. Parents will also be able to take paid parental leave if they have been in the same job for at least 6 months rather than 1 year as at present. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Why is it considered too difficult to extend paid parental leave to self-employed mothers when the Government already extends accident compensation cover to self-employed mothers? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The principles of paid parental leave are to assist parents to bond with their new baby and to offer financial support and job security to those parents. The delivery of those principles to the self-employed is my No. 1 priority piece of work in this area. 
Helen Duncan 
: Who will benefit most from the extension to the scheme? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: This will be equally beneficial for families and for businesses. Because businesses have to compete internationally for skilled employees it is important that New Zealand employees’ quality of life matches that of other developed countries; so the scheme will also be of benefit to our country as a whole. 
Employment Relations Act—OECD Rating 
8.  
Hon ROGER SOWRY (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: Has he received any reports that state that the proposed amendments to the Employment Relations Act 2000 will help achieve the Government’s stated goal of returning New Zealand to the top half of the OECD per capita income tables; if so who were those reports received from? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I have received a range of reports on that matter from officials and others. As the explanatory note of the Employment Relations Law Reform Bill states the bill is designed to promote productive employment relationships which should lead to increased employee involvement and commitment at the workplace level. In turn this should result in increased productivity and investment in human resources and should ultimately lead to improved employment growth and the distribution of earnings. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. As you know we have a limited number of questions. This question was given this morning in writing to the Minister and it is quite specific. It states: “… if so who were those reports received from?”. The Minister got up and said he has received the reports “from officials and others”. For a question that he had notice of in writing that answer is not anywhere near specific enough. It requires us to ask again to use up questions to receive information that we should expect now given the preparation time that the Minister has had. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister might like to define the term “others” a little more fully. The rest of the answer is in order. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: There are a series of others. One would be the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions for example. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: Has the Minister seen the December 2003 OECD country report on New Zealand which devotes two pages to talking about the risks to higher productivity posed by the Government’s moves towards more and more rigid labour markets; if so why is he still persisting with this flawed legislation? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Yes I have seen those reports. I also note that growth in New Zealand since the time of the Employment Relations Act has been pretty good—not as good as what we would ultimately like but not bad even compared with growth in the years under the Employment Contracts Act. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: Has the Minister taken any particular steps to boost workplace productivity; if so what? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Yes. I have recently announced the establishment of a workplace productivity work group to look at ways of improving workplace productivity. Although economic growth rates have improved over the past 15 years this has largely been driven by stronger employment growth rather than improved productivity. Current economic conditions such as skill shortages and relatively high labour participation rates suggest that improvements in productivity will be the key to lifting economic growth even further. A highly skilled workforce will enable New Zealand to be more productive and competitive in the global economy and contribute to economic growth. 
Peter Brown 
: If this bill is principally aimed at productive employment relationships as the Minister has just suggested what is the reason for denying non-union people the right to have a collective contract if they so desire? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Collective contracts by definition in the Employment Relations Act are those negotiated by unions. 
Peter Brown 
: In Australia they don’t. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I am sure this is a matter that people are making submissions on. I think the member is a member of that select committee and I am hoping it will come back with recommendations in due course. 
Sue Bradford 
: Has the Minister read any reports that indicate that countries with higher disposable incomes per capita like Austria Norway France Switzerland and Australia actually have less flexible wage-bargaining processes than New Zealand currently does; and does the Minister believe that current reforms will boost both incomes and productivity in this country? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Yes I have seen some reports on particularly productivity growth and economic growth in countries throughout Europe with more inflexible labour markets but I think there are a whole lot of factors to economic growth—not just the labour market. We have to try to maintain a balance between the rights and ability of people to get decent incomes on the one hand and the flexibility that is required for a modern international labour force. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: Does the Minister agree with his colleague the Hon Mark Gosche who commented last week that the $763 million that the Government provides to low-income workers as income support was in fact “a subsidy for business in order to allow them to keep wages low” and is that the sort of logic that is behind the amendments to the Employment Relations Act? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Yes I have seen that comment and I have not yet had the opportunity to discuss it fully and frankly with my colleague. I think the point the member was trying to make ultimately was that if we have productive employment relationships we have productive firms and if we have productive firms we have hopefully a productive nation. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: Has the Minister seen the comments made by Simon Carlaw of Business New Zealand at the select committee hearings on the Employment Relations Law Reform Bill that the cost of employment-related issues to business in 2002-03 was conservatively costed at about $665 million or 0.5 percent of gross domestic product and would increase to between $865 million and $995 million; if so how can he allow this bill to continue? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Yes I have seen that statement in that report. I note that Mr Carlaw says that that is what he thinks and he is asking people to prove him wrong. I will take it up with him this afternoon when I meet him and I am also writing to him to get the methodology the research and any modelling that has been done by Business New Zealand to come to those figures so that we can include them in our general consideration of the bill. 
Gangs—Proceeds of Crime Act 
9.  
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Is he satisfied that the Proceeds of Crime Act 1991 is proving successful in arresting the growth of criminal gangs? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 No and there is limited evidence internationally that such legislation by itself actually has that effect. What I do want to see however is reform of the existing legislation to maximise the extent by which assets can be stripped from gangs and organised crime—assets that clearly derive from criminal activity. The process is already under way and should result later this year in new legislation both strengthening conviction-based confiscations and introducing civil forfeiture. 
Marc Alexander 
: Why is it that for the past 8 years the courts have been asked for only 25 forfeiture penalty or restraining orders a year for the detention of assets belonging to gangs and other offenders when we know for example that the Mongrel Mob alone has around 6600 members; and how is it possible for this soft-on-crime Government to claim that it is doing anything to combat the wealth growth and increasing organisation of such gangs when it is seizing such a pathetic amount of their assets? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: There are two types of assets that can be confiscated under the legislation. One relates to tainted property which is property that has been used in the commission of a crime. In fact 122 forfeiture orders have been issued on that. The one that has been used less often is the pecuniary penalty order which has been used only 14 times. That is to confiscate the proceeds of the crime itself. It is because of my discontent with that level of confiscation that I am currently considering a civil forfeiture regime. Officials have been in Australia last month looking at that. Next month I will be in the United Kingdom and Ireland to look at the regimes in those respective countries. 
Martin Gallagher 
: How much has been confiscated under the Proceeds of Crime Act 1991 over the last 7 years and how does this compare with amounts collected or taken in under various overseas models? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Assets in the vicinity of $8.3 million have been returned to the Crown under the Proceeds of Crime Act since 1995 but interestingly the biggest-ever return under the Act was last year when $3.7 million of assets were taken. That sounds OK but if we compare it with New South Wales for example which is slightly larger than us we see that it took in excess of $84 million in New Zealand dollar terms under its civil forfeiture regime. That clearly demonstrates to me that there is scope for changing the legislation and looking at civil forfeiture as a way of bringing more assets in from organised criminal gangs. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Can the Minister confirm that he asked for his first report on the Proceeds of Crime Act in early 2000 and that every year he has been in office he has promised to introduce amendments by Christmas and that he has done it again this year; and is this not just another case of with Mr Goff Christmas never comes? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I cannot confirm what the member said because it is simply not true. What I can confirm is that in 9 long years of a National Government not only did National not introduce decent proceeds-of-crime legislation but it did not even promise to. Nor did it put into effect anything that might have led the country down that path. It was 9 years of doing nothing and now that member criticises a Government that is being proactive in this area and will act on it. 
Ron Mark 
: Has the Minister ever heard of Veronica Guerin the Irish investigative journalist who was assassinated on 26 June 1996 by Dublin’s gangsters as a result of her fiercely exposing organised crime and the assets that criminals accrued; if so why given the clear successes of the Irish Proceeds of Crime Act and the Irish Criminal Assets Bureau which was set up in 1996—4 months after Ms Guerin was assassinated—is he still dithering and wasting time? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: No I am not familiar with that particular case. I am however familiar with the fact that the Irish have run a regime for a considerable period of time as has New South Wales. It seems to me that the decision to be made is the nature of the regime to be put in place. I want to look at the existing experience of countries that have run those regimes which is most effective and which will best fit New Zealand’s circumstances. That is what the ministry and I are currently engaged in doing. 
Marc Alexander 
: What specific range of proposals will the Government initiate as the present Proceeds of Crimes Act is in no way useful given that it nets a mere $280000 per month while a burgeoning 95 percent gang-controlled $800 million P industry is swamping our cities and killing our kids? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I think the member overstates the case in saying that the Proceeds of Crime Act is in no way useful. He heard me just a moment ago indicate to the House that it has returned $8.3 million over the last 7 years. Is it good enough? I have also answered that question—the answer is no. Will it stop the production of methamphetamine? Unfortunately notwithstanding the promotions that have come out of Western Australia about the money that has been seized which is actually only about $2.9 million there is no evidence from any of these regimes that such legislation stops criminals engaging in criminal activities. What it does is take their assets but we also have to have proactive policing to deal with the criminals. That is why we have put $6 million into squads of police to crack down on meth labs. That is why we closed down 200 of them last year. 
Marc Alexander 
: When will the Minister concede that ordering his Ministry of Justice to tinker with the Proceeds of Crime Act will never be an effective substitute for real get-tough-on-gangs measures such as the gang asset forfeiture regime based on the Western Australian model as promoted by United Future? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Unfortunately the member did not listen to any of my preceding answers. I indicated that not only would a conviction-based regime be strengthened because there are inadequacies in it but that we are also considering a civil forfeiture regime. In terms of what model we use the Australian Federal Government looking at both Western Australia and New South Wales decided to enact federally the New South Wales model which has operated more effectively over a longer period of time. That is one of the models I am looking at at the present time. 
Ron Mark 
: I seek leave to table three documents. The first document is a profile of Veronica Guerin 
  
which might please the Minister. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Ron Mark 
: The second document is a press release giving details of the annual report of the Criminal Assets Bureau of Ireland. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Ron Mark 
: The third document is an article dated 6 February 2003 about the Irish Criminal Assets Bureau crackdown on criminals. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I seek leave to table reports of the Minister of Justice Mr Goff studying the proceeds of crime legislation for the years 2000 2001 2002 2003 and this year. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Maori Youth Contestable Fund—Recidivist Offending 
10.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
 to the  
Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF) 
: Was a grant made via the Maori Youth Contestable Fund as reported for a 15-year-old recidivist offender well known to police to purchase a computer as a “carrot” for not reoffending; if so did she continue to reoffend afterwards? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF)) 
: 
 No. However over 50 young offenders often with drug and alcohol problems learning difficulties and histories of sexual emotional and physical abuse have over the last 12 months been assisted through the fund to address their problems and engage constructively in our country. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Is it not correct that this young offender was given this computer by an agency contracted under the Maori Youth Contestable Fund in Christchurch because she was a young Maori offender and if she had been a non-Maori offender she would not have qualified and is this not the worst form of race-based policies? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: No. 
Dave Hereora 
: Can the Minister advise on some of the key objectives of this fund? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Some of the key objectives of the fund which reflect the broader aims of the department for all children and young people are to improve skill development leading to education training and employment. 
Judy Turner 
: Can the Minister confirm whether it is Department of Child Youth and Family Services policy to provide expensive taxpayer-funded rewards for youth reoffenders before they have demonstrated behaviour showing they have turned from a path of crime; if not why not? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: My understanding is that there is generally a requirement for a commitment to improved behaviour before any engagement with the offender takes place. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: How does the Government justify this $10 million race-based fund which is only for young Maori 10 to 16 years of age who have been regularly committing offences escalating in severity and does she support taxpayers’ money under this scheme buying these young offenders computers gym memberships sports shoes and music lessons? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Yes I do support the purpose of the fund which is to reduce the level of reoffending to maintain contact between the young person and his or her family to ensure that the young person accepts responsibility for offending and is held accountable and to ensure that he or she has skill development leading to education training and employment. In my view the overwhelming majority of New Zealanders would support that rather than what the member is proposing which is that if one has a young offender one should do nothing. 
Ron Mark 
: Is the Maori Youth Contestable Fund not just another trendy rehabilitation programme which like so many similar programmes is costing taxpayers an absolute fortune for no effective result; such as for example the faith-based unit run by the Department of Corrections that has just seen a faith-based member murder one of his fellow inmates—a highly successful programme? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: No. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I seek leave to table two documents. The first is the tender documents for the Maori Youth Contestable Fund which makes it clear that this $10 million fund is not available to non-Maori. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: The second document is a confirmation from the Minister that such a grant as I described is consistent with the rules of the scheme even though she denies it. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Petroleum Conference—Ministerial Announcements 
11.  
MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Energy 
: What announcements did he make during the New Zealand Petroleum Conference held in Auckland recently? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Associate Minister of Energy) 
: 
 During the Petroleum Conference I was pleased to announce the commencement of the offshore Northland block offer which will run for 9 months. Research by the Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences on the Northland Basin is showing signs that there is significant potential for North Sea - sized oilfields and gasfields to be present in that area. 
Mark Peck 
: How did this year’s conference differ from previous years? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: Remarkably. The 2004 Petroleum Conference demonstrated that there has never been a better time to explore in New Zealand. Conference participation was up considerably by over 25 percent on previous years and over 500 delegates were registered. During the conference Contact Energy and Mighty River Power also announced their intention to establish an $80 million fund to accelerate exploration for new gas resources. That initiative along with the new Northland block offer is excellent news for the industry in New Zealand. Overall I have to say it was a conference that was really buzzing. 
Foreshore and Seabed—Customary Rights and Title 
12.  
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Maori Affairs 
: What is the difference between Maori customary title and Maori customary rights to the foreshore and seabed and does he still believe that customary rights flow from customary title as he was reported as saying on National Radio on 24 June 2003? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 Customary title as proposed in the Government’s policy framework enables the title-holder to participate in Resource Management Act processes. A customary right relates to customary use. Back in June 2003 I had in mind customary law as defined by the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act. 
Stephen Franks 
: Does the Minister agree with the Hon Margaret Wilson’s recent advice to this House that “Maori already have customary title over the whole coastline.” and that the customary title comes because “According to Maori customary rights they have a connection with particular areas of the coastline.” and that “... does not need legislation from their perspective.” as she concluded and what exactly does the Minister think customary rights should give that Maori do not already have? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I agree because Maori have the ancestral connection. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: What solutions does the Government propose with regard to Maori customary title and Maori customary rights to the foreshore and seabed? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: The Government has proposed to create a new and unified framework that integrates all rights and interests in the foreshore and seabed. That contrasts with the Opposition which has come up with no constructive solution. It seeks only to divide all New Zealanders in this great nation. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Notwithstanding the answer the Minister has just given to the previous question can he confirm that the Government’s new position on customary rights outlined yesterday by the Hon Michael Cullen—to leave open the High Court’s jurisdiction to determine the extent of Maori customary rights—represents a very significant weakening of the public domain access and use as promised by Margaret Wilson by himself and by Helen Clark? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: The Government is working to finality and Cabinet decisions will be announced soon. 
Sue Bradford 
: Does the Minister agree that customary rights and the rights of all New Zealanders can coexist as is evident in the management of Lake Taupo and Okahu Bay and in the recently negotiated Te Arawa lakes agreement; if so will the Government consider co-management of the foreshore and seabed? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: Yes and yes. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Is it correct that the Government’s position is that where customary rights are to be granted they will be for specific activities that have been the subject of reasonable continuity in terms of their use back to 1840 and that there will not in that sense be any new customary rights granted under the Government’s proposals? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: Yes that is correct. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. What is our remedy if a Minister has contradicted himself during the course of question time? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That can be debated but not during question time. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Three aspects have come out of the Minister’s answers in question time today that are new to this House. Accordingly I seek leave for there to be a debate on those matters immediately after question time today. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave has been sought for there to be a debate. Is there any objection? There is. 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: Will the Minister now explain just exactly what new rights Maori will have with customary title that they do not already have under the Resource Management Act and if there are to be no new rights exactly what is the debate on the foreshore and seabed all about? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: Let us be quite clear on what customary rights are to tangata whenua. They are customary rights handed down to us by our ancestors. 
Stephen Franks 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have a further supplementary question but before I ask it I suggest that the Minister in his last answer made absolutely no attempt whatsoever to answer the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That may be the member’s opinion. It is not mine. 
Stephen Franks 
: Does the Minister agree with the Hon Trevor Mallard who was reported on 26 February as saying: “The fact that rights are not associated with title is something the public doesn’t understand and it will be vital to race relations in New Zealand that that understanding is achieved.” or does he adhere to his earlier answer that he agreed with the Hon Margaret Wilson who said something quite different and if he adheres to his earlier answer and Margaret Wilson’s answer why would Maori be so concerned to get customary title when it confers no extra rights? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There were three questions there. The Minister may answer two of them. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: There are days that I agree with Minister Mallard and there are days that I do not. Most certainly the difference in the sense of suggestions between the Attorney-General and the Minister of Education is a different issue. Cabinet will be informing members as soon as it can on the decisions. 
General Debates 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. When Dr Brash came into the House this afternoon and took a call before questions I thought he was going to apologise to the House and that is what most members of the House would have expected. There are two apologies Dr Brash should have made to the House if he wants to retrieve his credibility—the first in response to the personal comments he made about the Prime Minister. It is never edifying when members of the House reflect on the family circumstances of other members. It happens too often. It should not have happened and Dr Brash to retain any credibility should have been first up in this House today to apologise for that. 
The other matter in relation to personal affairs of members was his criticism of the personal religious beliefs of other members. In my 21 years in this House I have never heard a member get up and criticise the personal religious and spiritual beliefs of somebody else. That is a disgrace. That belies every effort made by the Leader of the Opposition to present himself as Mr Clean above politics. Clearly he has destroyed that image for all time. That is the worst form of politicking that we see regrettably in this House on rare occasions. What Mr Brash may learn from that experience is that self-righteousness in this House is always a risk. 
The second apology owed by Dr Brash was to New Zealand for his shameful performance in the 
 Australian 
 this week in bad-mouthing his own country overseas. Has Dr Brash learnt nothing from the behaviour of his predecessors Mr English and Mrs Shipley that New Zealanders do not appreciate so-called New Zealand leaders getting up and poor-mouthing their nation overseas? What he did was to criticise New Zealand’s track record in security and peacekeeping operations in the Pacific. I would be surprised if there were a single member of this House—a single New Zealander—who was not proud of what this country has contributed in places like East Timor and the Solomons. But what did Dr Brash do—safely he thought—in a newspaper in Australia? He gave support to claims that New Zealand had not pulled its weight in promoting peace in the Pacific and we have heard the same comment from Dr Smith. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: That’s right. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I want to tell that member as I also tell Dr Brash that this country has a proud record. This country was the first country into East Timor in support of the advance Australian group. This country was the country that made the biggest per capita contribution of any member of the international community in East Timor and I for one and members on this side of the House are proud of what our people did there. 
Dr Brash also supported those who say that New Zealand did not do enough in the Solomon Islands. New Zealand provided 229 Defence Force personnel. It provided four helicopters. It provided 35 members of the police force and it provided $14 million on an ongoing basis in development assistance. Yet Dr Brash goes out and says in Australia that we are not pulling our weight. When challenged by the New Zealand media to repeat those comments in this country he refused. He was the brave person who would speak to an Australian newspaper to ingratiate himself with an Australian audience but would not front up in this country to try to justify his comments running down New Zealanders. 
Then he said that the state of the relationship between New Zealand and Australia had never been worse. I find that interesting because John Howard said last year that the relationship “has never been in better shape”. John Howard was praising New Zealand yet Don Brash was saying in Australia that New Zealand was not pulling its weight. Then Alexander Downer made this comment about our contribution in the Solomons: “New Zealand deserves a sizable slice of credit for their excellent performance and the New Zealand Government has done a great thing being such a driver of the process.” Dr Brash should front up and justify the comments he made in New Zealand. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 A few weeks ago the leader of the National Party made his infamous Orewa speech and I welcome the opportunity to add my views to those of that speech. 
Simon Power 
: This will kill the debate. 
PETER BROWN 
: In essence Mr Power— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is out of order. The member cannot interject that close. 
PETER BROWN 
: In essence Dr Brash said little more or no more than what the Rt Hon Winston Peters has been saying for many years. However in the aftermath Dr Brash and the National Party have allowed the debate to move from the issue of the Waitangi grievance industry to an issue of Maori versus non-Maori and that is a worrying situation. It is what I would term the “colonial approach”—the “I know better than you; you will do this because I know best.” type of philosophy. It is all good vote-winning stuff because it must be said that New Zealanders both Maori and non-Maori want a settlement—an end to the Waitangi grievance industry. In a nutshell they are sick of it and want it drawn to a conclusion. 
I say to the National Party that in any dispute situation we care to look at if understanding tolerance logic and fairness are removed friction and abuse will replace them. The tension will go up and friction and abuse will come through the door. If National Party members have not noted that that is what is happening in this country already then they should go and look outside this House. 
It has to be faced that Maori are overrepresented in virtually all the downside statistics. Over 50 percent of people in our prisons are Maori. 
Hon John Tamihere 
: Too many of them in New Zealand First! 
PETER BROWN 
: Additionally Maori health statistics including life expectancy are of some concern—and I respond to Mr Tamihere by telling him that that is quite a serious issue. Further Maori have a much higher unemployment rate and they are further down in the educational stakes. They are not Maori issues and they are not non-Maori issues; they are issues for all of us in this country. They are issues for New Zealanders. If they had been addressed earlier on there would be no Maori treaty grievance industry. Further if and when we do address those issues this country Maori and non-Maori will be far better off. All of us will be far better off when those issues have been addressed. They must be solved. 
Regrettably—and as a result of the Orewa speech—this country is now splitting into sides. On one side we have radicalism and intolerance and on the other side emerging rapidly is bigotry and impatience. We must overcome them. We will overcome them. It is incumbent upon us in this Parliament to show leadership and unite this country. We get on together when we are relaxing we play sport together and we have fought wars together. We must surely be able to solve this issue together. 
In the end it will be Maori who solve the problems but it is incumbent upon all of us to create the environment and the opportunities. This country is too good to get stuffed up because we want to go up in the polls or play a little bit of political opportunism—which is what the National Party has been doing. [ 
Interruption 
] I see the member has put three fingers in the air. Let me just respond to the three fingers. Those three issues are concerns for the vast majority of New Zealanders and we intend to address them. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 Today I would like to highlight the misleading statements that have been made in this House and in the public media by the National Party and ACT about the impending lahar on Mount Ruapehu. The attempts by Opposition members to distort this issue have been nothing short of irresponsible. They have been shroud waving and using the terrible tragedy of Tangiwai to whip up anxiety about a natural process that has occurred many times on Mount Ruapehu without harm and that will indeed occur many times again. Opposition members have been exploiting the bitter memory of that event for their own electoral gain. Have you heard Opposition members being honest with the public Mr Speaker? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The Minister should not bring me into the debate. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Have members heard the Opposition say that a lahar similar in size to the one implicated in Tangiwai came down Mt Ruapehu in 1975? 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You really must listen to these speeches boring as they are because when a Minister makes that sort of allegation it is unparliamentary and he should be required to withdraw and apologise. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: As far as I am concerned I took no offence at it and the Minister was called to order for using that particular phrase. The Minister will now continue. I say to members that I will not tolerate frivolous points of order from either side that are designed to break up a 5-minute speech in this debate. Such tactics are out of order lead to disorder and are unacceptable for the progress of business through the House. What I want in this place is what everyone wants in this world and that is order. I urge restraint on members. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Has the House heard Opposition members say that a lahar similar in size to the one implicated in Tangiwai came down Mount Ruapehu in 1975 with no loss of life little fanfare and little damage? No of course not! That would be inconvenient would it not? It is better to hark back to 1953 and ignore all the improvements that have been made to infrastructure since then. It is better to scare people especially since they are already vulnerable after the recent floods in the lower North Island. Those are the actions of irresponsible political parties. Even a lahar three times the size of Tangiwai’s could not cause the devastation seen by the recent floods yet Opposition members have been blatantly associating the two to scare the public. Floods and lahars are completely different natural processes. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Rubbish! 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I would have thought even the general would know that. Floods increase as they travel downstream fed by tributaries and rain over several days. That means their impact is huge and widespread. In contrast lahars flow from a single point over a short period of time and diminish as they travel downstream. A lahar’s impact is largely localised to an area immediately below its source. 
Phil Heatley 
: Stop rushing the speech; slow down! 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I am rushing my speech because I have so much to say on this subject with just 5 minutes to do it. Has the House ever heard Opposition members tell the public that simple fact? Do not be stupid! They would rather distort the issue and feed off the votes and anxieties. It is the responsibility of every member of this House to be honest with the public about the facts. It is also the responsibility of every member of this House to think about the future as well as the present. 
In the future there will be more lahars and whether or not it is convenient for Opposition members the actions that we take today will have an impact on what size those lahars might be and how vulnerable people will be to them. The Opposition is correct: it is technically feasible to go up Mount Ruapehu and attempt to dig a trench to postpone the lahar that is due at the end of this year. It is not remotely safe but it is theoretically possible. But if we did so the geological advice to the Government is that we would create a nightmare for the future. A trench would leave behind most of the existing ash dam around Mount Ruapehu’s crater lake which would otherwise be swept away naturally in the lahar. Future volcanic activity would add to the size of the dam making it higher and the body of water trapped behind it in future would be much bigger. That could result in a far larger and much more deadly lahar in the future. 
I stress that this is expert advice; it is not ministerial supposition. Actions have consequences. Good Government is about considering those consequences before taking action; it is not about sacrificing the safety of future generations to postpone a problem today. 
If I understand National’s and ACT’s policy on the lahar it is that they would dig that trench and never mind the future generations or the patently obvious risk to workers. They would dig that trench despite those risks so they could eliminate what is now a minimal risk of the lahar causing harm if it goes naturally. Does that make sense—that is to create a greater risk tomorrow to eliminate a lesser risk today? Of course not. Mr Smith’s and Mr Shirley’s trench will not only leave future generations exposed; ironically it will leave New Zealanders of today exposed as well. 
The lahar could happen at any time. The trench would drain only some of the water in the crater lake. It would still leave huge quantities behind—water that could easily come down as a lahar any time if there were rim failure on Mount Ruapehu or another eruption. It was an eruption that created the Tangiwai-size lahar in 1975. There have been half-a-dozen completely unpredicted eruptions in recent years. 
It is worth remembering that the impending lahar on Mount Ruapehu was an issue when Nick Smith was the Minister of Conservation. He had years to deal with the problem—back when the lake was still low and when work on the rim would have been far less dangerous than it would be today. Do members know what he did? He ordered a report but did nothing 4 months before the election. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I welcome the opportunity today to confront the Minister of Conservation and this Government’s irresponsibility in respect of public safety over the lahar on the mountain and to confront the Minister on a number of issues that he has raised. 
First up the Minister said that we should not be worried because the lahar is only 150 percent the size of that which occurred in 1953. [ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. I just remind members that interjections are to be rare reasonable relevant and restrained. Members should refer to Speaker’s ruling 56/1. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I want to debate the issue of a lahar because the Government’s actions are contrary to the advice of the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management contrary to the advice of the Ruapehu District Council which has to put up with this risk and contrary to the advice of the regional council Horizons MW. 
I ask members in this House whether they would trust Chris Carter or the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management. It would have to be the ministry. Would they trust the local people in the local council in Simon Power’s electorate or George Hawkins? I know where I would put my faith and it would not be in the Ministers on the opposite side of the House. 
According to this report it would cost only $68000—3 days’ work—to remove the risk to the community downstream. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: Why did the member not do something? He had 4 months. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The Minister has been there for 5 years and the report that was tabled in April 1999 did the proper investigations about the work that was required. I say to the Minister opposite that the responsible thing to do was to go ahead with that. This “Minister of Political Correctness” is more interested in cultural sensitivity and environmental purism than the protection of public safety in that area. 
I want to know from Chris Carter when that 1.4 million tonnes of material comes hurtling down the mountain what advice he will give trampers in the district. Will he advise them to run? Is that what his advice will be? Will he guarantee and indemnify the councils of the local area for any damage? 
 I invite any member of the Government to answer the question given that it has made a decision against the advice of the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management. Will it indemnify the local councils for any damage that is done to their property? No it will not. What is more this report says that the lahar will destroy the monument that was created for the 153 victims of the Tangiwai disaster. What sort of people would sit on their hands and allow the lahar to go down the mountain when there are practical measures that would resolve it? The Minister says there will be other lahars that we cannot stop so why should we stop this one? 
Hon Chris Carter 
: There’s been some already. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: That is right; there have been about 60. But interestingly they have been one-hundredth of the size of that which is predicted to occur in the next year. It is nothing less than dishonest of the Minister to make that comparison. [ 
Interruption 
] The Minister asks what happens if the crater rim collapses. He asks how that lahar can be prevented. The Minister is right. And does the Minister know the probability of that occurring? It is one in 2000. And what is the probability of this lahar occurring? It is 96 percent. It is guaranteed to happen in the next 12 months yet this Minister would sit on his hands. I say to the Minister that we on this side of the House will hold him responsible for any loss of life. 
The last question I have for the Minister is why for 5 years have we been told by him that he is not going to do anything about it because of concerns about cultural sensitivity of the mountain—and suddenly it is all about occupational safety? I ask anybody who has had any experience of bulldozers how it is so difficult to cut a trench 7 metres deep in the ash layer. [ 
Interruption 
] I would and I say to the Minister right now to surrender his ministerial warrant and I will do it today. Members on this side of the House will do it today. Why did the Government not— 
Hon Chris Carter 
: What stopped you the first time? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: That is a fair enough question. Let me answer it. I am happy to. The fact is this report was delivered in April and the Minister received the technical report— 
Hon Chris Carter 
: 4 months you had. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: That is right and the technical report on the engineering works was completed in June 2000. Who was the Minister in June 2000? It was Sandra Lee. I say to the Minister that public safety in this country should be put ahead of the political correctness from Chris Carter. 
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 I watch a television programme called  
Tagata Pasifika  
each week. It is a wonderful piece of television. Unfortunately a lot of people do not see it. Just recently I saw the National spokesperson on Pacific Island Affairs Judith Collins describe her leader as “honest Don”. Let us test that little label out—“honest Don”. Let us have a look at “honest Don’s” utterances and see whether they can be relied upon. Members will remember the big speech at Orewa which received lots of publicity. Back then he was relieved that we were now going to have a debate on the treaty. He said he was “relieved that at last this issue was being put back on the table for debate … I think we do it by having a rational intelligent mature debate which I am committed to having.” 
That was then. What about now? Maybe a month has gone by and the National Party according to “honest Don” is now asking why we need an inquiry. As far as he can see there is no need to have an inquiry: “I think the debate does not need to be had.” What has changed in a month? I also saw Dr Brash on television I think it was saying the  
Holmes  
poll agreed with him and so we do not need to have any more debate. Goodness me! A  
Holmes  
poll is going to govern this country if National becomes the Government? That is a bit of a worry. We do not have to have a debate on a major important issue that was a major important issue a month ago. Now a month later “honest Don” says we do not need to have it because he has won. That is what he said: “I’ve won the debate everyone agrees with me let’s get on with the next issue.”  
Well let us get on to the next issue. The National Party is going to cut tax for low and middle income earners. Can members imagine the billboard? “National will cut tax for low and middle income earners.” 
Hon Mark Burton 
: Yeah right! 
Hon MARK GOSCHE 
: Yeah right! They have long memories in this country about National and the way it treated low and middle income earners. They can remember wages being cut because of the Employment Contracts Act they can remember benefits being cut they can remember market rents and they can remember the poor old pensioners getting their pensions cut. And what did National do? It cut the tax for the rich. So the real billboard from “honest Don” will be: “National will cut tax for the rich and we’ll pretend it’s for the poor.” But nobody will believe “honest Don” on that one. Nobody will believe that “honest Don” will look after the poor and the low and middle income earner. No way. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member should be referring to Dr Don Brash by his full name and not “honest Don”. He has mentioned that a number of times in this debate. In debates we refer to members by their full name—Dr Don Brash. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member for drawing it to my attention. I refer the member to Speakers’ rulings 26/7 and 26/8. Members must refer to other members by their full name their title or their portfolio. 
Jill Pettis 
: Yes stop calling Don honest. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I ask the member on my right to stand and apologise because a point of order was being ruled on and the member interjected. 
Jill Pettis 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am just reflecting that at the start of the member’s speech he did point out that he was quoting the title given to the leader of the National Party by one of his own MPs. Do I take it from your ruling that we are not thereby permitted to use in quotation any titles or references that another member has already placed upon one of his or her own? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Anything that is published outside and is not considered to be parliamentary within this Chamber is out of order. 
Hon MARK GOSCHE 
: I am more than happy to take the lead from the junior Opposition whip not to call the National leader honest and I will just point out why. This is what Dr Brash said: “The treaty is not remotely a blueprint for building a modern prosperous New Zealand.” That was Dr Don Brash on 4 March. But the poor old National Party manifesto that it took to the country honestly last time—nobody read it—said: “National recognises that the Treaty of Waitangi is the founding document of New Zealand.” It is no wonder National does not want me to use the word “honest” when referring to its leader because that is an illustration of the doublespeak we get from the National Party. 
We can go through quote after quote after quote. Here is Dr Brash in Southland on 23 February: “It is simple. It is one law for all.” But the day before he had said: “There’s a whole bunch of stuff that might be tolerable or even net beneficial. Now where the line is drawn I can’t be precise.” So it changes from day to day month to month hour to hour. Talking about race-based policies Mr Sowry said: “One size doesn’t fit all; it never has. That is what held this country back in the 70s and 80s.” 
Who could believe a word that any single National Party member says? Quite honestly Mr Tisch is right. We should not be using words like “honest” and “Don” in one sentence because there is ample evidence to prove they do not belong in one sentence. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have called to your attention before that there is a need for you to listen. I sympathise with you that these are incredibly boring speeches but nonetheless it is not appropriate that members use those speeches to breach the Standing Orders and call into question the honesty of other members of the House. I know that poor old Mr Gosche has a speech in front of him that is a bit of a missive from “Helengrad” and he has to read it out today. The “Burns unit” up there compiled a whole pile of statements that he has to get out. He has to put them on the record. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Would the member get to the point? 
Gerry Brownlee 
: It is up to you to see that they do not get on to the record because they are contrary to the Standing Orders. They are inappropriate. It lowers the standard of debate—mind you under this Government that is not unusual. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I can understand the member’s concern but if I were to rule on everything this debate would not get very far at all. I ask the member to desist and come to the point. 
Hon MARK GOSCHE 
: Let us look at another example of the Leader of the Opposition’s doublespeak. He was asked whether to be consistent we should also abolish health welfare and education programmes based on such things as gender age disability and region. The answer from the Leader of the Opposition Dr Brash was: “Good question I am not sure if I know the answer to that.” He is out there having everyone believe that National will do away with this stuff but when he has to be honest and front up to a question about whether he will do away with it his answer is no. Dr Brash would have the country believe that it is a waste of time to have a Minister of Maori Affairs but when questioned about it he said that he has not “crossed that bridge yet” and that it is “clearly something to think about over the next 18 months”. Rubbish! 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 On behalf of New Zealand First I wish to raise the issue today of whether the sale of Westhaven Marina in Auckland is illegal. New Zealand First is appalled at the state of affairs that is developing on the Auckland waterfront with the proposal of Ports of Auckland Ltd to seek foreign buyers for Westhaven Marina. What express statutory authority does Ports of Auckland have to sell Westhaven Marina? New Zealand First policy on foreign ownership of New Zealand property is clear: we are totally opposed to it. Any foreign buyers of property of national importance such as the Auckland waterfront should bear this in mind before entering into any purchase. 
If the Parliament of which I was a member from 1975 to 1984 had had a proposal before it to sell land from Auckland Harbour Bridge Park through to Queen’s Wharf the person proposing such a sale especially to foreign interests would have been accused of treason. The important waterfront of a trading nation should be held for the best interests of the country rather than sold to line the pockets of a few investors. Other New Zealand First MPs and I worked on the Auckland wharves at the beginning of the container age. What would happen if there were a disaster in the remaining area belonging to Ports of Auckland and it became incapable of being used? Where would the people of Auckland turn if there were a disaster on the remaining piece of land? What could they develop for harbour purposes if such a disaster took place? 
I have read the opinion of Sir Geoffrey Palmer on certain assets and he makes the point that the current law regarding ownership of the assets can be altered only by Parliament. His opinion seems to be written though from the point of view of Ports of Auckland Ltd. 
The history of the area is clear. In 1875 the wise founders of Auckland endowed the Auckland Harbour Board with 2023 hectares of harbour bed and included the land that the Ports of Auckland company is now trying to sell. The Auckland Harbour Board carefully looked after its assets which were passed over to Ports of Auckland in October 1988. In the early 1990s Ports of Auckland fought hard to retain ownership of the Westhaven Marina through considerable court battles because it was regarded as part of its business. As Ports of Auckland fought so hard to keep the marina why is it now selling it? It seems obvious to me that the area was established by the people of Auckland who always believed they owned it and now Ports of Auckland no longer wants it. The marina should be transferred to a special body established by an Act of Parliament for its administration. That would not be difficult. I have previously introduced legislation in Parliament for the establishment of the Westpark Marina. The same principles apply to any part of the Auckland waterfront. 
Does Ports of Auckland have the statutory power to sell? Although there is no doubt that Ports of Auckland was established to operate on a commercial basis it is equally clear that it was meant to do so while retaining the assets that were vested in it. Its business is not the sale of its assets but the development of its assets. The Port Companies Act makes it clear that it is “An Act to promote and improve efficiency economy and performance in the management and operation of the commercial aspects of ports and to this end—(a) To provide for the formation of port companies to carry out port related commercial activities and control the ownership thereof;”—in other words not to sell them. Thanks to court cases we know that Westhaven Marina is a port-related commercial activity as are all Ports of Auckland activities. Usually a power to sell assets is expressly set out in the Act or in a deed. I cannot see any such express power of sale in the Act. I might be wrong but I believe this matter should be investigated. 
Section 5 gives power to the port company to operate as a successful business for the purpose of carrying out port-related commercial activities and to control the ownership of port-related commercial activities. It is not a power of sale of such activities. Again section 27 authorises a transfer of the land only to a port company in terms of the Land Transfer Act and not to any other body. In other words no other party has a legal authority to acquire the land because the Land Transfer Act’s definition of land does not give the Land Transfer Office the power to create fee simple titles for the foreshore or seabed involved. Specific statutory authority is required; hence the authority in the Act. In this case the authority is limited only to Ports of Auckland. New Zealand First would expect that the Overseas Investment Commission would decline the sale of this nationally important property to foreign interests. 
What do the Labour members of Parliament for Auckland care about this matter? What does the National Party care about it? What is the member for Mt Albert doing about it? She was in the House when the legislation was passed. What is the leader of the National Party doing? The two of them should stop indulging in slanging matches such as we have seen today and start doing the jobs for which they are paid—including that of representing Aucklanders. Perhaps the ninth ACT member of Parliament is only too keen to see the waterfront sold to foreign investors in keeping with ACT’s policies. What are the Greens doing about it? Nothing—even though this is an environmental matter. Labour and National have joined together to sell important assets such as the Whenuapai Air Base and now I see them selling the Auckland waterfront. New Zealand First is today supporting Auckland first. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 It is not my intention to get into some of the details of recent statements made by the current leader of the National Party except to note some really interesting and revealing newspaper coverage. I note the very interesting editorial today in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 entitled “Mud-slinging backfires on naive Brash” and I also note the press coverage. What I object to is the implication by the leader of the National Party that the Prime Minister should have refrained from speaking in the Christchurch Cathedral. In my view that is some very flawed thinking. The Prime Minister spoke in the Christchurch Cathedral to reflect on the 5th anniversary of the Hikoi of Hope of 1998 when almost 30000 joined the march. Those people called for a change from the cost cutting deregulation and restructuring of the 1980s and 1990s. Too many New Zealand families were trapped in poverty jobless and struggling to access health and education. Clearly the real agenda behind the current hype of the Opposition National Party with reference to race relations in our country is its intention to take this country back to those times.  
Lest we forget we reversed National’s cuts to superannuation which would have seen at least a third of older New Zealanders living below the poverty line. This relatively newish leader of the National Opposition is promising to review superannuation and the age of eligibility. All New Zealanders below the age of 50 should now start readjusting their post-retirement plans in terms of when they turn 65. That leader has started to float the prospect of older New Zealanders having to work past the age of 65. New Zealanders who have spent a lifetime contributing to this economy and this nation are having to start contemplating now that they will have no choice but to work past the age of 65. I say to anyone listening to this debate tonight— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member may not refer to radio listeners. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER 
: I stand corrected Mr Speaker. I ask people in the Chamber who are listening to this debate whether they honestly think that in that area and in a number of other areas when it comes to workplace conditions age of retirement eligibility eligibility for health-care funding eligibility for decent access to schools national pay scales for teachers and commonality of education a Brash Government ably assisted—says I with a degree of cynicism—by Mr Richard Prebble will sit on its hands and do nothing. 
 I say to this Parliament today that it should look past the current National Opposition’s rhetoric on race relations in this country and see what its real agenda is. Look at Dr Brash’s record and the policies he supported when he was Governor of the Reserve Bank. Look at his statements on asset tax around properties. Look at his statements around taxing the family home. Look at his statement about raising the age of eligibility for superannuation. Look at those statements and look at what we know in our heart of hearts he wants to turn the economy into. Look at his attitudes around workplace conditions in this country and then say whether he will be a kindly gentleman who sits on his hands and does nothing. 
To its credit New Zealand First understands that. I even believe that the United Future party when it starts to look at that understands that. Every other party in this Parliament bar ACT—minus Donna Awatere Huata of course—supports that. 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 All I can say after that speech is that Dr Don Brash has drawn a line in the sand and the vast majority of New Zealanders are standing with him against that minority Labour Government. Within days of Dr Brash’s speech in Orewa the Prime Minister was telling the people of New Zealand that her Government’s policies were based on need not race. That is what the Prime Minister said: her Government’s policies were based on need not race and she would run the ruler over her Government’s policies to ensure that no racial privilege was offered by her Government. 
Today the National Party in Opposition is calling for the end of a $10 million race-based fund that buys computers gym memberships sports shoes and music lessons for young offenders who are Maori. I take members back to 15 June 2000 when Ministers Turia and Maharey announced the Maori Youth Contestable Fund which would fund initiatives developed by the Maori community that aimed to reduce Maori youth offending. That was to be funded with $10 million over the next 4 years. 
Official documents which I tabled in the House earlier today show that that race-based programme is targeted only at Maori youth between 10 and 16 who have been regularly committing offences and whose offending is escalating in frequency or severity. That is race-based funding of the worst order. It rewards young offenders with taxpayers’ money with no regard for the victims or the community and it must be stopped. 
In one case—which the Minister denied—a 15-year-old Christchurch youth who was a recidivist offender and was well known to the New Zealand police received a computer worth around $1100 through a provider contracted to that fund. Apparently the computer was a carrot to stop reoffending. But it was received before there was any demonstrable evidence that that young person had decided to turn her life around. What is clear from what has been advised is that that offender continued to reoffend despite receiving a computer paid for by the taxpayers of New Zealand. There are suggestions that the offender was given the computer so that she could write a letter of apology to her victims and so that she could keep in touch with her Department of Child Youth and Family Services case manager. 
That is yet another example of Labour’s politically correct race-based social engineering policies. I ask the House how the Prime Minister can say that her policies are about need not race when under the Maori Youth Contestable Fund providers get $16500 for each Maori youth but nothing for non-Maori youth who are at risk but who are ineligible for that fund. We had wide support from the Government benches today for that race-based policy. 
The reason why I raise this issue is that it was that Prime Minister—who stated on television that she was Pakeha she wanted to defend her culture and she was not going to be a stranger in her country—who said she would not allow her policies in her Government to be based on race rather than on need. But if members look at this fund they will see that $10 million over 4 years has been allocated up and down the country on one major preference which is race. 
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
: 
 In relation to the comments made by the previous speaker in terms of the National Party’s policy over race-based funding it concerns me that that policy has caused a huge division in our nation—an unacceptable division between Maori and non-Maori. Dr Don Brash’s refusal to commit to an inquiry is a typical cop-out. It is running away from the issues. Dr Don Brash cannot claim that the treaty is not remotely a blueprint for building a modern prosperous New Zealand and just walk away from that statement. He should commit to an inquiry. That would provide an opportunity for the public in particular to participate in that debate and hence to be a part of it as we evolve as a nation. I have heard comments from Dr Don Brash that instil that division further. He has suggested that he would hire a Pakeha over a Maori of equal merit because he said Maori could claim unlimited tangi leave. That is totally unacceptable. 
I move on to the Government’s policy in relation to needs-based funding. It is important that we look at the recent anniversary of the Hikoi of Hope and the reasons surrounding that hikoi. Primarily it was to do with poverty particularly that of whanau and family. Some of the problems that people experienced were that they could not get access to basic health-care and education. Five years on I believe it is necessary to place on record Labour’s commitment to and accountability concerning those issues. 
Unemployment was at 7.4 percent in 1998. It was down to just 4.6 percent last year. Job growth has averaged 44000 per year since this Government was elected and in that respect in relation to one of the issues from the Hikoi of Hope Labour has delivered. Income and benefit levels have lifted people out of poverty. We have increased the minimum wage five times in 5 years from $7 per hour in 1998 to $9 per hour this year. That is about an extra $80 per week. We should also not forget what we have done in housing. We have returned to income-related rents for State houses so that low-income families pay no more than 25 percent of their income on rent. I recall clearly that the National Party sold off State houses and depleted the stock. Where is the point in that? 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Yes they did—thousands. 
DAVE HEREORA 
: It sold thousands of them. We have also made education accessible. It is a key fundamental to learning. We have stopped the 15 percent per year average increase in tertiary fees. We are now experiencing record numbers of New Zealanders in workplace training and I understand that we have over 6000 in Modern Apprenticeships at this stage. 
 Let us look at the health system. It needed to be accessible. I understand that more than 2 million New Zealanders are now enrolled in primary health organisations—that means about one in every four New Zealanders has access to low-cost primary health care. I think that is wonderful. It shows that Labour has the right policies in place to ensure that we are caring for families in New Zealand. 
With regard to industry training our target is to have at least 150000 New Zealanders in industry training during 2005 and 250000 new trainees by 2007. This is part of an overall goal to have all 15 to 19-year-olds in suitable education training or work by 2007. We are ensuring a skilled workforce for the future. Our Government has aggressively expanded industry training so that New Zealand can become a world-beating knowledge economy and society. Industry training gives people in employment the opportunity to gain recognised qualifications through a combination of on-the-job and off-the-job learning. More skills in our workforce will lead to higher productivity more innovative products and services and secure employment opportunities. We have revitalised industry training. 
Since the Labour-led Government came to office in late 1999 the number of workers participating in industry has grown by a massive 56 percent. There are now 126870 people in industry training. That is a big increase on just under 50000 as at June 1999. 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 I will talk today about the terrible way that Labour is treating older New Zealanders. I will concentrate on three things: cuts to surgery; a broken promise on asset testing; and the cruel decision regarding Alzheimer’s medication. We know that this Government is wasting a whole lot of money in the health sector. We know that it has increased bureaucracy with 21 district health boards and 66 advisory boards. We know that we now have primary health organisations and that all across the country they will have governance boards made up of one-third Maori one-third providers and one-third community members. 
It does not matter whether the organisation is based in a region where only 3 percent of the population is Maori the board will still be made up of one-third Maori at a minimum. It does not matter that Maori primary health organisations have no non-Maori on the boards. That is fine. There can be no non-Maori on those boards but the governance of primary health organisations has to have a minimum of one-third Maori. We are seeing primary health organisations all over the country going to the wall. We saw Middlemore Primary Health Organisation Ltd with 62000 people enrolled go into liquidation. The start-up cost of the organisation is wasted money because this was never trialled. 
We know that 20 percent of the funding that goes into the access formula is based on race. We are told that that is because of mortality. If it is because there is higher mortality for Maori what about men’s higher mortality? I ask the men on the other side of the House how many years they will die before women. On average it is 5 years. The men of New Zealand access services less often than women but not only do they get far less funding than Maori they get less funding than the women who go to primary health organisations. Funding cannot be fairly based on mortality. Primary health organisation access funding is based on race and it is unfair. 
However with money going into that kind of funding what do we see with surgery? We did the financial review today of one of the district health boards and they were very honest about the fact that they had to cut surgery and about the way they had been forced to put up the points for hips knees cataracts surgery gynaecology tubal ligations and ear nose and throat. The hurdles people had to jump to get surgery had gone up. Every district health board that we review tells us that the points have gone up which means that patients have to be sicker to get service. Who bears the brunt of that? Three hundred patients in Nelson and Marlborough have just been dumped from the waiting list for ophthalmology. 
By the Government’s own admission its  
Health and Independence Report 
2003 
 showed that we are doing fewer orthopaedic procedures than in 1999 when National left office. We are doing fewer cataract procedures than in 1999 yet we have an ageing and increasing population. This Government is not delivering to the elderly of New Zealand with regard to elective surgery. 
Then there is asset testing. This Government went to the elections twice promising to remove asset testing. Has it done it? No and do not think that Grey Power does not notice. All it has done is increase the asset level that people can keep and that is exactly what National did in 1998. Labour has not kept its promise. Then we come to the cruel decision made this week about Alzheimer’s medication. There are no other medical treatments for Alzheimer’s but Pharmac’s budget has been held. Again the  
Health and Independence Report 2003  
shows that Pharmac’s budget was held at $515 million for 2000 $515 million for 2001 and $503 million for 2002 and 2003. That is why Pharmac cannot afford to invest in new medications. I will read a few press releases. The Alzheimer’s Society release is headed: “A day of shame for New Zealand”. These medications do work. As a geriatrician before I came to Parliament I know that these medications can work. 
I will read the comments made by some of the people who made submissions. Ann Bethall has written a submission for her friend Kath who cares for her partner Bob who has dementia. Bob is only 58 years old. He was a dynamic hard-working businessman who improved markedly when he was put on this medication. The couple can no longer afford the $225 per month that the medication costs because Bob cannot work and now he may have to go into care. It costs $36000 a year to put somebody into care. These medications can keep people out of care and it is shame on this Government that they are not funded. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 I will start by asking some questions. Who gave us the Employment Contracts Act? Who wanted to sell New Zealanders’ holidays? Who would scrap 4 weeks’ annual leave? Who froze the minimum wage for 3 years? Who privatised accident compensation? Who opposed penal rates for public holidays? [ 
Interruption 
] Wait there is more. Who attacked better health and safety laws? Who will not guarantee pensions at 65 for all New Zealanders? Who wants to give tax cuts to the rich? Who scrapped the Apprenticeship Act? Who opposed paid parental leave? The answer is National and its mates from ACT. 
Now I ask: who scrapped the Employment Contracts Act? Who introduced paid parental leave? Who is bringing in 4 weeks’ annual leave? Who has increased the minimum wage every year? Who rescued accident compensation from private insurance? Who brought back penal rates for public holidays? Who improved health and safety laws? Who increased superannuation payments? Who created a special superannuation fund? Who introduced Modern Apprenticeships and who introduced paid parental leave? 
Government Members 
: Labour! 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Thank you. Now let us look at leadership and let us look at the Opposition and Don Brash. He stirred up good New Zealanders by making outlandish claims such as increased bereavement leave for Maori which was not true. I challenge Dr Brash to refute the fact that his attack on Maori medical students is just a case of sour grapes or the politics of envy because his family missed out on getting there. 
Let us look at that man Dr Don Brash. He is running away from issues. He changes his mind about policies more often than we have had hot dinners. When he stirred up the treaty debate he was relieved that it was at last on the table and that we would have a “rational intelligent mature debate”. From National members? Yeah right. We then said that we would look at an inquiry but he responded: “Well do we? I don’t think we need an inquiry. There’s no need to have an inquiry. I don’t think that has to be had.” So what do we do? 
Let us also look at some really good things that have happened recently such as a big boost in industry training. That is something this Government is very proud of—an increase of nearly 20000 trainees last year to a new record high. Since the Labour-led Government came into office in late 1999 the numbers of workers in industry training have grown by a massive 56 percent and total funding has increased by 70 percent. That is done in partnership—something that the Opposition side of the House would know nothing about—with Business New Zealand and the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions through the Skill New Zealand campaign. I want to acknowledge the business community and the union movement—another group on Dr Brash’s hit list; well not the business community just the union movement—which have contributed much to the skills agenda in New Zealand. 
This is a family-friendly Government. I want to look at talk about and celebrate the increase to paid parental leave. That leave will be increased to 14 weeks in line with the ILO and in line with holding our head up in the world saying we care about our families and we are progressive. I congratulate the Ministry of Women’s Affairs on its work on this leave provision. It supported it liaised with women and ensured that the plan will come to pass because it will be introduced in legislation. Again I acknowledge the Ministry of Women’s Affairs and say that that is another group the visionary Dr Don Brash has on his hit list. He has women on his hit list; he does not see the need for the Ministry of Women’s Affairs. He does not see any need for unions in this country; he thinks they are destructive. 
Hon David Benson-Pope 
: He doesn’t see much need for Maori either. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: That is right. He challenges anything that is progressive. I know that this opinion is held not only in my electorate but also in Whangarei. When I was last up there there was huge support for Labour’s policies. 
DONNA AWATERE HUATA (Independent) 
: 
 I do not believe that Dr Don Brash has any idea of the impact that his statements have had on Maori and on New Zealand. I do not think he nor senior members of the National Party have any idea of what they have done. I am of that generation as the member is over here that has lived amongst the stench of racial hatred—and I am going back 30 years. For the past 30 years I have watched with some relief that stench evaporate. But I believe that now we are seeing a re-emergence. My children who have never experienced that hatred are now for the first time seeing that that shadow of hatred has crept into their lives. I for one am deeply deeply sorry for that because when I look at the policies that Dr Brash offers I believe they offer true hope for Maori—they really do. I want to mention four of them. 
The first is school choice. Before we had zoning 33 percent of Maori moved from their zone—from their decile area—into a high decile area. They actually went to better schools. That option has now been cut off at the knees. They are stuck where they are living. Bulk funding gave principals the opportunity of catering for individual children’s needs. They have had that removed from them now. Maori children who benefited under bulk funding have had that option of advancement taken away from them. 
There is also the matter of literacy teaching. The way we teach literacy at the moment is race based because the methods used benefit Pakeha and disadvantage Maori. What I have heard from Dr Brash is that he will declare war on that kind of race-based literacy teaching. Then we will not need the need silly courses now proliferating into Maori communities. Really tackling—really tackling—the issues that affect the Maori community in literacy is what I look to him for leadership on. 
I also look to him for leadership on doing away with the National Certificate of Educational Achievement. We heard today from the New Zealand Qualifications Authority that Maori achievement on National Certificate of Educational Achievement is nothing like what they told us it would be 4 and 3 years ago. The results are impoverished. Maori achievement is not down but it certainly is not what we had hoped for and I hope Don Brash will do something about that. He will make a tremendous contribution to Maori educational achievement. If only he would just stick to that and tell us about those kinds of things. What he is doing now and what he has done by giving his Orewa speech is basically give permission for bureaucrats to run for cover. He has unleashed the dogs of war. He has unleashed a groundswell of hatred the likes of which I have not seen for the last 10 years. I give members one small example. 
Today an innocuous little organisation called HortResearch came before my select committee. Every year it has come before us for the past 7 years I have been asking whether it is an organisation that exists only for Pakeha because one would think so. There is no Maori senior management no Maori strategy no Maori staff and no attempt to lift the achievement of Maori land. At the end of the day it is Maori who own that undeveloped land and it is Maori land that the Maori economic commission told us many years ago has potential for economic development that has been completely unrealised. Finally 2 years ago this little organisation got its act together and developed a Maori business strategy. Finally it will do something to leash and grab hold of the potential for development on those lands. What do we have now? It is running for cover. It is saying it has no strategy to bridge the gap. It has nothing for bridging the gap between Maori and non-Maori achievement on land development. It is basically running for cover. 
We see that all over the place. We saw it at a health hui I was at the other day. The health bureaucrats are running for cover. We have spent 20 years building up capacity in the Maori health sector only to see it beginning to crumble before our very eyes over the last 3 months. Judith Collins speaking in this House on a health bill asked what would we do for cancer in Maori women which is six times the non-Maori rate. At the rate this National Opposition is going it will tear down all of those brilliant initiatives that we Maori and Pakeha have built over the past few years. I think that is a tragedy. 
Another example is that my kura kaupapa have been waiting for 5 years to get our building. My children travel for an hour and a half to and from school every day. Now the Ministry of Education is dragging its feet. Why is that? Because Don Brash has given it permission to go back to the attitudes of 20 and 30 years ago—that being Maori does not matter and that: “If you are kura and Maori just wait your time.” To Don Brash for that I say: “Shame on you! You should stick to your knitting and do what you can do well.” 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister of Fisheries) 
: 
 I move  
That the Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. The purpose of this bill is to amend the Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium) Act to extend the moratorium on new applications for aquaculture activities in New Zealand’s coastal marine area until 31 December 2004. The bill also reinstates coastal permits that have lapsed while approval was being sought for marine farm permits that are granted under the Fisheries Act for the sites and prevents existing permits from lapsing for the same reason. The bill extends the time limit that is currently provided for the Minister of Conservation to respond to requests for early uplift of the moratorium. The current limit has proved difficult to administer. 
The moratorium was initiated to provide time for aquaculture law reform legislation to be passed and for council planning to be initiated. The main reforms will provide greater certainty for applicants and submitters making it clear where aquaculture can occur and where it is prohibited. The reforms will also enable councils to look at all the sustainability issues related to aquaculture including fisheries in an integrated way. Therefore councils will be better able to deal with all environmental effects and provide greater certainty for the aquaculture industry and the wider community. 
The current moratorium has ensured that councils have not been flooded with marine farm applications in a so-called race for space prior to the new legislation coming into effect. However those reforms have not been progressed as quickly as expected and will not be in place before expiry of the current moratorium at midnight on 24 March 2004. Although that delay in the reform process is unfortunate regional councils have continued to develop aquaculture management areas during the moratorium. The delay will also allow time to clarify issues related to the foreshore and seabed and supports the sentiment of the select committee which emphasised that: “The new legislation needs to be sound and to give some certainty about the wider regime governing planning in coastal marine areas.” 
 There is an urgent problem concerning the lapsing of consents that is peculiar to the current Resource Management Act and Fisheries Act dual permitting regime. This bill fixes that problem. The situation will not be a problem in the future as the aquaculture reform legislation will remove that dual permitting regime and replace it with a more comprehensive Resource Management Act regime. The problem arises only for some of the coastal permits that are still being processed under the existing dual Resource Management Act and Fisheries Act 1983 regime. 
The problem arises because section 125 of the Resource Management Act provided that any resource consent would lapse unless the resource consent was given effect—for example if a marine farm area was developed within 2 years of the date of commencement of the consent. Under the Fisheries Act permits for marine farms can be granted only to farmers with Resource Management Act consents and when this process blows out to more than 2 years there is a problem with consents lapsing. There are currently around 200 coastal permits that have not yet had their applications for a Fisheries Act permit considered and about 100 applications for sites where the coastal permit has lapsed before the Fisheries Act permit has been decided. Failure to remove the lapsing problem would cause the industry to suffer large losses would hamper planning in Marlborough in particular and would create unnecessary conflict and disruption. 
In order to resolve that issue the bill provides that the making of an application for a marine farming permit or a spat-catching permit under the Fisheries Act 1983 will be deemed to be giving effect to the coastal permit. These provisions would apply only to coastal permits for marine farming granted between 1 June 1995 and 1 August 2003. The bill will also revive consents for aquaculture that have already technically lapsed. 
The provision relating to lifting the moratorium by Order in Council in specific areas now requires the Minister to make a recommendation within 40 working-days of receiving a request from the relevant regional council. It is likely that the extension of the moratorium will result in more use being made of the early expiry provisions. Those provisions are an important part of the transitional arrangements to the new aquaculture regime. Early expiry provides a route for councils to fold existing planning provisions where these are suitable into plans in the new regime. They also provide for the release of space for development. 
This bill allows time for the main reforms to be completed when there is more clarity around issues in the marine environment. To do that the bill extends the moratorium until the end of December 2004. It also reinstates permits lapsed due to problems in the dual permitting required for aquaculture development and extends the time frame for decisions by the Minister of Conservation with regard to the early expiry of the moratorium. 
I assure the House that although I can give no ironclad commitment because of other factors occurring contemporaneously I will give every endeavour to ensuring no consideration will be necessary for any further extension of this moratorium. I commend the bill to the House. 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 It is interesting is it not that when the moratorium was put in place over 2 years ago the issue was all about a race for space. Lots of aquaculturalists saw an opportunity and wanted to gain space in the marine area. It was a race for space. Now the issue has become one of space for race. We know that the Government is doing a deal with some Maori to give them 20 percent of the marine farming areas. It is about space for race—a deal done on the cheap at the expense of all New Zealanders. That is what the issue is all about and we are pointing that out to the House today. It was about a race for space; now it is space for race. 
Interestingly I put this question to the former Minister on 29 July 2003: “Is he going to extend the 2-year moratorium on new marine-farming consents in light of the submissions made by Maori over seabed and beach ownership …?”. I asked him whether he was going to extend the moratorium over the issue of seabed and beach ownership and the Minister came back to me and said: “As I told the marine-farming industry—” 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. Can I say to members that there is nothing wrong with robust debate; that is part and parcel of the House. But I also say to them that they should refer to Speaker’s ruling 56/1. Interjections are to be rare reasonable and relevant. Any member can seek the next call if he or she wishes but running commentaries are out of order. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker for your consideration. This is what the former Minister said when I asked him whether he was going to extend the moratorium because of what had happened over the seabed and foreshore issue. The former Minister said: “my aim is to avoid any extension … and I expect to know in a few weeks whether I will succeed.” He did not succeed in that. That comment was made back in July last year. The former Minister did not succeed and the moratorium has been extended now for another 9 months. Aquaculture is on the back-burner. The Minister is doing deals that New Zealanders know nothing about and we are seeing new marine farms go overseas. 
Marine farms are shifting. We are seeing headlines like this: “Further delay on new marine farms” and like this: “Marine farmers threaten to go overseas”. Farmers are well past making threats now; marine farms are going overseas. “Aquaculture delays will cost millions.” as another marine farmer said to the Primary Production Committee. We have seen the special select committee set up by the Labour Government in order to avoid this whole issue. I am sitting on that select committee and I say that it will end up being a shambles because Labour Party members have decided for some reason that they will cause a diversion and set up a special select committee when the whole issue could be dealt with through the fisheries law regional council law and a different select committee. 
Interestingly we saw this article in the newspaper late last year which I will reread to the House. The line I am interested in reads: “It is also expected that any deal on the foreshore and seabed will include giving Maori a share of the aquaculture industry.” I do not know because the Minister of Fisheries has not told me—and he certainly has not told the rest of New Zealand—how he is to decide how much of the marine farming area he will gift to Maori. He has not decided how to measure how much he will gift to Maori and in failing to do so he has not told us whether he believes Maori own the foreshore and seabed. But I would have thought that if the Minister is to give Maori marine farming areas in effect he is acknowledging that they own the foreshore and seabed. So one wonders why if the Government is to give Maori 20 percent of the space it does not give them the whole lot. That is the obvious argument and where the issue is heading. 
When the moratorium was first set up over 2 years ago I was interested to be introduced to a number of Maori submitters. In fact a high proportion of the 143 submissions we had were from Maori and they raised several issues at that time. One issue was that the moratorium would have negative impacts on their development—and nothing has changed. They said the water within their rohe was of concern—and nothing has changed there; that still is of concern. Then they said that there would be adverse effects on the existing treaty settlements. Nothing has changed there with regard to the moratorium now. Maori also said back then that the 2-year moratorium needed to be opposed because there were issues to do with the ownership of the seabed and foreshore. That was 2 years ago. Maori submitters opposed the moratorium then. Nothing has changed so they should be opposing the moratorium now. 
But the seabed and foreshore issue is not the only one that is locked up in the whole moratorium extension. It is not the only reason that the handbrakes have been put on. There is also the issue of regional councils struggling to make any headway at all on aquaculture management areas because the Ministry of Fisheries has not provided them with enough information. In fact in this paper I tabled last year regional councils stated this: “There is an inability to plan for aquaculture management areas in the absence of essential fisheries-related information held by the Minister of Fisheries along with the gaps and inadequacies in that information.” 
 Further they stated: “The use of a moratorium is a blunt and inflexible management tool such that no new aquaculture activities can commence until aquaculture management areas are created.” That is a damning report. 
I was concerned enough about that report to actually contact the former Minister through official channels and ask him about the new moratorium extension. I was concerned enough about the first 2-year moratorium let alone the extension of the moratorium to do that. I said he had not made any progress in 2 years and asked him what made him think he would make any progress in the next 9 months. I asked what extra resourcing if any he would put in place to ensure that the ministry completed the reforms and other required tasks during the 9-month moratorium extension on new marine farm areas. That was a simple question. The former Minister was extending the moratorium for 9 months because he had made no progress in 2 years so I asked whether he was going to chuck some more resources at the issue so we could get the job done. His reply was: “At this point”—and let us remember he had had 2 years to think about the issue—“I do not consider it necessary to make additional resources available to complete the aquacultural reforms before the expiry of the moratorium. The moratorium extension was necessary because of the unexpected complication of the foreshore and seabed issue and the Waitangi Tribunal  
Ahu Moana 
 report that delayed the development of the aquaculture legislation.” 
The reality is that the Minister of Fisheries is not putting any resources into this moratorium at all. We will not see aquaculture management areas or the seabed and foreshore legislation resolved in the next 9 months and in 9 months’ time we will be debating a further extension to the moratorium because no progress has been made. If we do not debate a further extension we will simply go back to the situation that we were at 2 years ago where there was cumbersome legislation defining the aquaculture industry. There has been little progress since then. 
National opposes this bill; we certainly will be voting against it. The Government should get on with making public the aquaculture reforms so that regional councils are not flying in the dark any more when trying to manage aquaculture. Although the Government says that the intention of the delay is to enable more clarity around the foreshore and seabed issue it should still be communicating with regional councils. We have no confidence that 9 months will be sufficient time to resolve the foreshore and seabed issue particularly since the Prime Minister says that the legislation on that matter will not come into the House until after May. The Government has no time to enact the aquaculture reform legislation and it has no time to help regional councils to plan for aquaculture management areas. There is not a dog’s show that what the Minister plans to do in the next 9 months will happen and I say that the foreshore and seabed legislation and the deals done there are what is holding the whole process up. 
MAHARA OKEROA (Labour—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 I stand here to comment on that honourable member’s statement in the introduction of his speech to the House. He made what I consider to be an entirely inappropriate statement. He said something about space for race and a race for space. I think that was entirely inappropriate on the basis that it was not a race for space that actually generated the debate when one is talking about the foreshore and seabed or about aquaculture and the extension of the moratorium. The debate was about space for race. If that member was honest and had any sense of integrity about what he said he would admit in this House that it was actually the issue of space for race that ignited the whole debate that we are presently engaged in. 
I need to clarify for that speaker that Maori were not participants in the space for race. There was a non-Maori monopoly on the licences granted for aquaculture space in Marlborough. I think that distinction needs to be made. It is already an absolutely proven fact. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: It was 30 percent. 
MAHARA OKEROA 
: Yes but Maori have been forced to buy space rather than being granted a licence. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: But it was only 30 percent. 
MAHARA OKEROA 
: If that member cares to debate the issue with the district council in her own area maybe she will be in a position to make a statement rather than misleading this House with what I consider to be throwaway lines based on space for race. That is entirely unacceptable and it shows the level of debate that is coming from the Opposition. All that that does is try to reinforce an agenda and continue the issues that we are fronting at the moment. My rating of that particular presentation would be a zero out of 10—there is no doubt about that. 
That is my brief commentary on this issue. I do not see that space for race or a race for space has any relevancy to this debate and I commend the Government’s move with regard to the extension of the moratorium. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 Last night and again now I just wondered what a Carroll a Ngata or a Buck—all of the same persuasion of a party on my right—or a Ben Couch a Duncan MacIntyre or other Ministers of Maori Affairs in past National Party administrations would think of present-day members talking about “dirty deals” for Maori a “space-for-race” deal and last night “throwing a bone at Maori”. Again I ask my National Party friends where they are really going because if they are people seeking an answer for David Carter and others from the far reaches of Canterbury there is an answer and it is the New Zealand First answer. With regard to the issues of the seabed and foreshore upon which aquaculture is placed we stated in June last year that this party stands for Crown ownership of the seabed and foreshore with customary use yesterday today and for the future. 
When that party over there comes to accept the reality of that position and this party over here realises that that is the only answer then and only then will the aquaculture reforms which were so bravely announced in 2000 be really advanced. The sooner this House comes to that understanding the better because the real issue in the House with regard to aquaculture is not the Maori issue. It is really the inability the unwillingness or the ill-preparedness of the Government with regard to aquaculture. 
Let me refresh the Government’s mind about the brave new thinking of 2000 when Minister Hodgson released a discussion document describing “an important step in aquaculture.” He said: “I have no doubt that much of the growth in the fisheries sector will flow from investment in aquaculture in the innovative use of resources and new technology. I am encouraging further development along these lines because it will benefit the entire economy particularly regional economies in which I have a special interest. The Government is committed to sustainable development of our natural resources by ensuring that economic environmental and social interests are considered together and not separately.” 
Then he went on to talk about the ocean policy. Where is that? He said: “In terms of aquaculture there is a need for Government to provide a legal framework that can support sustainable development without undermining the rights of other fishers or allowing undue adverse impacts on the aquatic environment.” Those were brave words in October 2000. It was a brave Minister setting out in bold graphic terms the overall purpose and challenge identified by the Government. Where are we in 2004? We are here discussing the inability of the present Government to get on with the job. Over and over again and one by one submitters expressed that point of view to Government members in the Primary Production Committee. 
The purpose of the first moratorium—so-called—was to provide time for aquaculture reform to take place and for local authorities both regional and unitary councils to make aquaculture plans leading on to plan variation and plan changes. Finally and accordingly its purpose was to allow resource consents to be advanced with certainty as to what the reform process meant and advanced with certainty as to the zone areas able to be farmed. That was the intention of the first moratorium. I have to say that as far as the Minister of Fisheries is concerned he would not know whether that status is there now. After hearing his ministerial statement I have some doubts whether he really understands the ramifications of the bill before us. 
Submitters came to the select committee very concerned about the delay. They were particularly disappointed with the low flow of information from the Ministry of Fisheries and the Department of Conservation. One particular submitter—Cullum McCallum from the Auckland region—said that effectively an 18-year moratorium was already there. We know that and I mentioned it yesterday in the Committee. As far as they were concerned that was but another added distraction to be unwillingly considered. 
That submitter and others were particularly concerned about the viability of the present development—an issue that had been raised by other members in the House. There was the matter of justice for the present permit-holder who had developed an aquaculture consent. If that person or those persons or those companies should be subject to competitive tender in the future then what was their future in the new zones that were set out? 
Another submitter—a large one from the South Island—raised the issue of the cost of significant investments and the need for clarity and certainty about that. The Minister for Small Business over there should know exactly what that is about and he should be doing his part to ensure there is clarity for small businesses and other businesses. 
Hon David Carter 
: He’s making big businesses smaller. He’s doing a good job. 
JIM PETERS 
: Yes far better than going around and having some fuzzy-wuzzy talks he should get down to practical action and see what can be done. 
There has been concern particularly from regional councils about the lack of fisheries information from the Ministry of Fisheries. They are concerned that there appears to be inadequate research. Most of all I am personally concerned about the inactive role of the Minister of Conservation and the Department of Conservation—a role that is an essential core component of any fishing permit. 
I quote from a recent resource consent for Pegasus Bay where a most surprising and unique theme was advanced by the Department of Conservation. At that hearing a departmental officer said that because there was no information about the site the application should be declined and she spoke at some length on that. It was a very circular argument because it meant that no farm can be established in an area where farms were absent because the adverse effects of farming cannot be adequately assessed. If that is the attitude of the Department of Conservation with regard to that consent there must be genuine fears in this House about its role in the future. 
My concern about the Minister of Conservation and the Department of Conservation is that despite what has been said by Mr Heatley at least one regional council in this country took the Minister at his word at the very beginning of the so-called moratorium. The Northland Regional Council understood—and I will say again that the third round of consultation is taking place right now—that the disturbance in relation to the local coastal community over the siting of any marine farm was likely to be great. Therefore the greater the degree of understanding and the greater the amount of information about the impacts the better for our community. 
Despite what has been said in the House that is another reason for New Zealand First to support this bill. This bill enables an enterprising and ongoing regional council that has met the conditions of the aquaculture management areas and defined them to have use of an early expiry of the date set down in the bill. I think that only one or two councils are in that position. 
To conclude we have a very unusual situation. First we have been promised three times in the House that at the end of the moratorium there will be the ability to make further progress on aquaculture. There is no feeling around the traps that that optimism will be sustained yet out there is an industry willing and able to go. The world demands for this industry are so great. The $220 million that was returned for mussels alone last year could be doubled and tripled with ease over the next decade. 
It is most important for places like Northland the East Coast and the West Coast that the deep-ocean technologies allow that money to be earned now and it should be. Last year  
The Economist 
 spoke about marine farming as the “new food harvest of the future”. Last week marine farms were referred to in Northland as the “orchards of the ocean”. That potential income and those jobs can be realised and a long-term sustainable sensitive industry developed but they need that Minister who has just spoken recently and his Government to realise that that development should take place from 1 January 2005. 
IAN EWEN-STREET (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party supports the extension of the moratorium. I note that most of the other members who have spoken seem to believe that the extension of the moratorium represents a problem in some way. While I see their point of view it is also a reality that we can see the extension of the moratorium as an opportunity for the Government and regional councils. 
There has been much talk about the race for space—which is why the original moratorium was put in place—and the complication of the foreshore and seabed issue that is being debated publicly at the moment. If we look at the extension of the moratorium as an opportunity we can appreciate the complexity of what aquaculture is all about. It is not just about people occupying space and making money. It is about a natural ecosystem that is being interfered with by humans. We need to spend time and money looking at research into the effects of marine farming. 
If the Government got off its backside and very rapidly put at least a draft of the main aquaculture reform legislation out to the community regional councils at least would be able to say that those are the kinds of areas they want to put into their aquaculture management areas and it would allow them the time to do baseline surveys. What happens at the moment is that an individual company or an individual person says: “I’m going to put a marine farm here. This looks like an appropriate area.” They do their impact research on the local environment and they get a resource consent or not on the basis of that information. 
Further if we are to extend aquaculture management areas in the future we need to know what is there at the moment—in other words in its undisturbed state—so that we can look back subsequently and say that is the impact that marine farms have had. In terms of cumulative impact no reports have been done. No long-term longitudinal studies have been done on the impact of marine farming on the marine ecosystem. 
There is also the question of the rubbish generated by marine farms and that is a very real issue. I take my hat off to companies in the Marlborough Sounds—in particular Sanford’s which has recognised that rubbish from marine farms is a major issue. Floats break free little pieces of rope are cut off in the harvesting process and they tend to drift ashore and accumulate on beaches. To Sanford’s credit it has adopted beaches and encouraged members of the community to adopt beaches and they have done clean-ups. But it is an issue that we have to look at and we have that opportunity right now. If we know where the aquaculture management areas are likely to be we can do baseline studies and find out what the situation is now before an aquaculture industry is developed. 
 There is also the opportunity to look at the interrelationship or creative tension between competing users of space. These are not just marine farmers but boaties recreational fisher people and people who go to live in areas like the Marlborough Sounds for the natural beauty of the place and simply do not like to have their view disturbed. There are varying views on that of course. Some people think that the busyness of a view adds to it. However the residents of a particular area certainly have the right to be heard. 
There is also the impact of marine farms on zooplankton and phytoplankton the nutrient sources for the mussels; also the argument that mussels by eating the phytoplankton are not actually taking away a resource but creating a light space so that more phytoplankton can grow thereby creating their own food. But we simply do not know what the long-term impacts are. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: We do. Look at the Scottish study and the Tasmania study. 
IAN EWEN-STREET 
: That is precisely it—look at the Tasmanian studies and the Scottish studies. What I am talking about is looking at the New Zealand studies. We have in New Zealand a unique species that grows nowhere else in the world. We need to do the baseline studies that have not been done and we now have the opportunity to do them. 
The Greens support the passage of this bill. I suspect though that my colleague Phil Heatley may be correct in that we will be having another debate on precisely this issue before December this year. That will be when the Minister discovers that a 9-month extension is simply not sufficient for regional councils to do the work required and for marine farmers to adapt themselves to the upcoming aquaculture reforms. 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister of Youth Affairs) 
: 
 Before commending the bill to the House for its third reading I want to take issue with a number of assertions made by the member for Whangarei in his third reading speech. It is right in this House that we have scrutiny of the highest standard and that robust accountability and transparency is asked for. It is not right when we are disingenuous in respect of a bunch of Kiwis solely because they are Maori and that member went a tad too far today—as did his leader. We should lift our debate a bit and start to acknowledge that we have to start to move this thing forward. The comments made were not the best of comments and I expect better from the member for Whangarei. 
Inevitably when aquaculture marine areas are declared in terms of space it is obviously a proprietary interest that is granted and just as people staked their claims in the days of the gold rush so too that has occurred here. We therefore have to be very reserved and very reflective about the way proprietary interests in the coastal domain are handed out and applied notwithstanding an industry on the cusp of being a sunrise industry which aquaculture is. We acknowledge that. 
I commend my colleague the Minister of Fisheries and members on this side of the House for a number of infrastructure things we have had to address. This is another infrastructural issue and it is much the same as other areas we have had to clear up such as telecommunications electricity transport information and communication technology and the roll out of broadband. It is this Labour Government that has had to put in huge effort to set in place prudent appropriate infrastructure that allows fairness to all—not just to the big end of town that Dr Brash and his colleagues represent. I commend this legislation to the House. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 I think it is of some significance to Parliament to note that on the Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill the Government takes the opportunity to bring the Minister for Small Business the Hon John Tamihere from his parliamentary Beehive office to speak about this industry. And that is exactly what is happening with this legislation. There are some sizable companies throughout New Zealand significantly those based in areas like Banks Peninsula the Marlborough Sounds and right up around the Northland area. These are large businesses but because of the continual imposition of a moratorium that stops them from expanding we will see them become small businesses and therefore come under the control and responsibility of that Minister the Minister for Small Business. The industry needs to note that it is Mr John Tamihere who has been asked to make a contribution in the debate on this bill today. 
I want to start my debate by noting that this legislation is now in the name of the new Minister of Fisheries the Hon David Benson-Pope. I realise it is unlikely that in time to come historians will bother to study the parliamentary career of the Hon David Benson-Pope but if they are so inclined I want them to note that the very first legislation this Minister passed into law after becoming the Minister of Fisheries was not legislation to help fishing but to stop it. So the proud record of the Hon David Benson-Pope will be that his first legislation through the House was legislation that stopped an industry from expanding. 
For 5 long years now we have heard this Government pay lip service to the need for economic growth. We know that the Prime Minister stood in this House and spoke about the need to lift New Zealand back into the top half of the OECD. At the time she had a time frame of 10 years and half of that time has now expired. During the Committee stage I asked the Hon David Benson-Pope whether he would rise and explain how this bill in any way at all helped New Zealand lift its growth rate. 
John Carter 
: What did he say? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: The Minister sat silent. He had not actually thought about that and the officials had not briefed him. But deep down he must know that this legislation did nothing to help New Zealand’s growth. In fact it does completely the opposite: it inhibits a very vital industry. 
We heard in the earlier stages of the bill’s passage through the House that aquaculture had the potential to be a billion-dollar industry. The green-lipped mussel is particular to New Zealand. Currently it is worth over $200 million in exports to this country which puts it on the same footing as the New Zealand wine industry. We know the reputation and success the New Zealand wine industry has had. Our wine products are in demand all around the world and here we have another industry the green-lipped mussel industry which is just as valuable to this country. The industry wants to expand. We are experts at growing green-lipped mussels. We have the ability to expand. We have the ability to lift our export earnings from this particular species. So what does the Government do to assist? It throws on a further moratorium saying there are a lot of problems around issues to do with the seabed and foreshore and therefore it is imposing a moratorium to stop people from progressing and expanding their businesses if they are involved in aquaculture. 
The job of any Government is to govern. That is the fundamental job a Government should do. Problems and concerns will come along and present a challenge to a Government and the very thing that should not be done is what the previous Minister of Fisheries did. He has now been fired so at least we have his scalp and soon we will be looking for the next one—that of David Benson-Pope. But the previous Minister the great Labour Party strategist said: “We don’t know how to handle the issue. We’ll impose a moratorium.” But he did one further thing when imposing that moratorium. He gave a cast-iron guarantee to Parliament that under no circumstances would that moratorium due to expire on 25 March be required to be extended. Here we are on 17 March—1 week before the expiry of the current moratorium that Pete Hodgson guaranteed under no circumstances would require extension—rushing more legislation through that extends the moratorium for a further 4 months. That man Pete Hodgson has a huge amount of apologising to do to the fishing industry. The industry is delighted that he has been sacked as the Minister because he was hopeless. He will go down in history— 
Hon John Tamihere 
: Ha ha! 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: John Tamihere laughs! That man Pete Hodgson was the man who thought up the flatulence tax. It was his idea. Does Mr Tamihere remember that? We had 2000 farmers protest on the steps of Parliament and under that sort of pressure Mr Pete Hodgson had to do another U-turn and acknowledge that taxing every sheep and cow in New Zealand was a rather silly idea. I see that Mr Tamihere agrees with that and he should also agree with the other point I am about to make—that is to impose a moratorium on a potential $1 billion industry is also a very silly idea. 
However I want to go back to my point about the requirement for an extension of the moratorium. Shortly I will discuss why it is happening but I want to state on record that the current bill we are debating today extends the moratorium for a further 9 months and we have had guarantees from the Government that a further extension beyond 31 December this calendar year will not be required. I say to Government members that I bet they do not have a solution to the issues around aquaculture and its expansion by the end of this calendar year. 
Jim Peters 
: I hope the member is wrong. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I certainly hope that I am wrong too but I guarantee that I am not. Before the end of this calendar year the Government’s solution will be to rush a further moratorium extension bill into the House and further delay this industry. 
During the submission process some tremendous submissions were presented to us but one that I remember—and I want the Government to take note of this one—was from a man called Mr Brad Govan who manages Pacifica Seafoods. He came along to the select committee and said that he was desperate to expand his business. He had worked all his life in aquaculture so he had a huge amount of knowledge and managerial skill. He told the select committee that he had offers from both South America and Australia to take his skills off shore and establish aquaculture there. That did not seem to ring a chord with Labour members around the select committee but it did with me. Why do we encourage capable wealth-creating New Zealanders to consider taking their enterprises offshore? That is nuts. Those people should have the ability to operate in New Zealand and this moratorium does not achieve that. 
I want to conclude by saying that until the Labour Government sorts out the seabed and foreshore issues there will be no resolution to the issues around aquaculture. Mr Phil Heatley used the words about the race for space fast becoming a space for race. Some of the Maori members have taken exception to that but that is exactly the issue. 
Mahara Okeroa 
: No it’s not the issue. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Mr Mahara Okeroa disagrees. He appears in Parliament so infrequently it is sometimes difficult to remember his name. Mr Okeroa says that it is not about that issue. The Government should resolve the seabed and foreshore issue because until that is done it will not progress aquaculture in this country. 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I rise in support of the third reading of this bill. It has the technical effect of extending the moratorium as has been debated from the end of March until the end of December this year. The Government has been quite honest and open in acknowledging that it would have preferred to have the issue resolved sooner but what is more important to us is to get this issue right. The Minister has said that and the other Government speakers the Hon John Tamihere and Mahara Okeroa have said that. It is important that we get the legislation right so that it does deliver for ordinary New Zealanders. The only thing I regret is the continued use of race by National Party members. It reflects very poorly on them. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (ACT) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the ACT party to oppose this bill. I have to say that personally it gives me no joy at all to speak in this debate. In fact a debate like this makes me ashamed to be a member of Parliament because this bill is a fraud. This bill is trying to signal to the whole marine farming industry that a moratorium will be lifted by the end of December this year. Every single member of this Parliament knows that that is a lie. The Government knows that it is a lie yet it is forcing this Parliament to pass this blatantly false bill. In the time that I have been in Parliament I cannot remember having actually to do what I am doing now which is to speak on a bill that is not true. This moratorium will not be lifted by December of this year. This moratorium will continue on for probably years and years. The Labour Government is trying to pretend to everyone who is involved everybody who has aspirations for marine farming in New Zealand that at some stage in the not too distant future those aspirations can be realised. That is an absolute abject lie. 
The moratorium was brought in a couple of years ago because the Government panicked when a whole lot of people decided that the marine industry had opportunities for them. There was a whole rush of applications with many of them from Maori who saw that this industry provided opportunities for them. The Government faced with this rush of applications panicked. Instead of just putting in place processes to deal with it it put in place this moratorium which was meant to last for 2 years and to run out on 25 March. The Government has now panicked again and has brought in this bill which extends the moratorium to 31 December 2004 but we all know there is absolutely no way that that deadline can be held to. I take exception at the new Minister of Fisheries Mr Benson-Pope who spoke at the beginning of this debate saying in effect: “I give my word that there will be no further extension.” That Minister should learn that he should not start his career as a Minister by making promises that he knows will have to be broken. His reputation will be tarred because this Government has no intention at all of lifting the moratorium by the end of this year. 
When the Government goes even further down in the polls and tries to blame everyone else it can look to its own record of broken promises and U-turns to give it some inkling as to why the New Zealand public is now losing confidence in the Labour Government. The reality is that the foreshore and seabed debacle which is probably the biggest constitutional problem that New Zealand has faced in recent history has been caused by the Labour Government. When faced with that problem which arose through the Court of Appeal ruling it decided it would use the opportunity to further appease Maori to try to buy their vote at the next election. It had not realised that that would push its whole thrust towards trying to secure the Maori vote past a tipping point. When New Zealanders woke up to the fact that Labour had now become a very unfair Government because it was trying to push privilege too far in one direction like the possum caught in the headlights this Labour Government panicked. From then on we have seen U-turns on the foreshore and seabed issue and a whole bunch of lies as the Government tries to correct where it has gone just too far. 
The best thing this Labour Government could have done as it entered this debate was to come clean with Parliament and the people of New Zealand and simply say it was now caught up in difficult issues. It should have said that this bill would extend the moratorium and that unfortunately we would probably have to look to extend it into next year or even beyond. If it had done that I believe that it would have earned some respect not only from members of Parliament but also from the public. Instead it continues to spin its way out but as we all know in politics these things do come round and bite one. 
The problem too is that the Minister said in his introductory comments that this bill would bring greater certainty to the industry. Again those words are simply smothered in snake oil. This bill does anything but bring certainty to the industry. If we look at what industry needs we realise that certainty is absolutely essential but it also needs honesty from the Government and it needs to know that the Government understands what it takes to run successful businesses and to have people make business investments. It is no wonder that businesses in New Zealand do not trust Labour. 
Hon John Tamihere 
: They don’t trust you. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN 
: The Minister for Small Business got up a few minutes ago and made some statements that were absolute rubbish. The point is that the reputation of this Government as an anti-business Government is growing and it will continue. The small-business sector which is faced with the new challenges that the industrial relations law reforms will bring this year believes that this Government knows nothing about running business. Many New Zealanders who work for those small-business companies are losing faith as well. If I recall one of the latest polls shows that Labour is losing the support of ordinary-bloke workers who have always supported Labour but have now decided that this Government cannot be trusted. 
The aquaculture industry is currently worth hundreds of millions of dollars to New Zealand. The potential I understand was for that industry to grow to $2 billion by the year 2020 if it were allowed to continue to expand to grow to develop and so on. It is a shame when a Government panics because what happens is that firstly an industry cannot grow and achieve its potential and secondly the players in the industry—the business people who have put their investment into the industry—face disruption conflict and losses because of the uncertainty that has been brought upon them by this Government. I would like to express my sorrow to that industry. It is unfortunate that the marine farming industry has the worst Government that it could possibly have chosen. 
But I would also like to extend my sympathy to the regional councils up and down this country which have been consulting in a genuine way over aquaculture marine areas as they were asked to do. They have been misled by the Labour Government because Labour should have told them late last year when the foreshore and seabed debacle came about that they need not bother consulting right then because that debacle would put everything further back. Instead this Government has allowed them to waste their money and ratepayers’ time and money as well. 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 National will not be supporting the extension to the moratorium. Listening to John Tamihere I have to say that he reminded me of the Norah Jones’ song “Sunrise Sunset”. The marine farming and aquaculture industry used to be a sunrise industry but this Government has done its absolute best to turn it into a sunset industry—just like the Norah Jones song. That is what it has done to this industry. The reason the moratorium is not expiring on 25 March and is being extended for 9 months is that the Government could not get its act together. It could not get the aquaculture law reform legislation into any shape or form. 
We have to remember that Marlborough is an area where Mahara Okeroa said Maori could not get involved in marine farming. That is completely incorrect. Maori own 30 percent of marine farms in Marlborough; 17 percent of those employed in the industry are Maori compared with 11 percent in all other industries. Maori are more involved in this industry than in any other. It is not because they have had handouts or special privileges; it is because they have got in there and footed it with everybody else and they have done extremely well. This Government’s patronising attitude to Maori has to stop. It tells Maori they are sick; it tells Maori they cannot do things without special privileges. I say they can and this is a very good example of how they can do it. Maori own 30 percent of the marine farms in Marlborough and they did not need a patronising Government to get them into the farms. 
Aquaculture law reform has become totally and utterly bogged down. This business creates regional development. If we want to get this country going and have jobs for the people then we want marine farming. I agree it used to be a race for space because a whole lot of people wanted to get into it. But now this Government is going to pass the management of aquaculture areas down to the regional councils. That is like everything else it does. It passed health on to the district health boards and washed its hands of it. Sorting out aquaculture management areas will be passed on to the regional councils. 
I do not believe that the Government has got itself into a position to handle the new aquaculture law reform. I believe we will see another extension to this moratorium because this Government has not been able to manage this issue. Havelock in my electorate was full of empty shops and empty hopes 15 years ago and now it is the thriving heart of the greenshell mussel industry. We will not see that happen around the rest of the country in places like Opotiki and in all those other areas that could be thriving with this sort of industry. But in Havelock we have work we have new homes we have an expanding marina we have restaurants and we have a sense of vibrancy—all because of an industry that was growing at 20 percent per annum. However it is now stalled at the starting gates of the 21st century. It is stalled because this Government is bogged down by bureaucracy by this moratorium that is now being extended because of the seabed and foreshore issues by Environment Court hearings by consultation by the Resource Management Act—and the list goes on. 
We heard Ian Ewen-Street talking before about how we do not know what the environmental effects are. Greenshell mussels are the only endemic species we farm and we have had reports from Scotland and Tasmania showing that although there is a minor effect under the farm outside the farm area there is very little effect. Let me give members an example of what this industry is facing. The latest extremely expensive imposition on the industry is the Fisheries Resource Impact Assessment otherwise known as a “FRIA” to investigate the impact of marine farming on the environment. It cost the industry $170000 to do that for just one bay and basically it told us nothing more than what we knew from the Australian and Scottish reports. That was $170000 imposed on the industry. I wish the Minister for Small Business had talked about some of those impositions and costs on businesses in New Zealand. The men and women who forged this industry—people like Jim Jessop who went out and forged it into a sunrise not sunset industry—have absolutely had enough of the bureaucracy surrounding it today. Marine farmers are enmeshed in these treaty settlement obligations. 
My friend Phil Heatley the MP for Whangarei—and who will be the Minister of Fisheries in the next National Government—talked about the “space for race” because that is one of the issues that is bogging down aquaculture law reform. This Government has not been able to deal to the foreshore and seabed issue of how much space will be allocated to Maori in aquaculture management areas. That “space for race” issue has not been sorted out and it is one of the major reasons that aquaculture law reform is being held up and why this moratorium has been extended. Then we get to the resource consents process—and thank goodness for this is the only part of the bill I would support because it would allow consents to be grandparented and to go through. Can members imagine what people in the industry who have a small marine farm have to go through with all the complicated problems involved in getting resource consent? The Minister when he took a call said that the process had blown out a bit. Blown out a bit? Marine farmers have only 2 years before their resource consents lapse and the Ministry of Fisheries cannot manage to get around to giving them a fisheries permit. Can members imagine the frustration of those people who have gone through the resource management consent process and are waiting to get their permit? Two hundred people are waiting for fisheries permits. Of those 100 have expired resource consents because they have been waiting for over 2 years. 
To add insult to injury what do Ministry of Fisheries officials do? If people ring up to ask why their livelihood is going down the gurgler they are charged 200 bucks an hour for the privilege. That is how this Government works. It does not understand the needs of people in the industry. Marine farming had export earnings of only $25 million in 1989 but earned $260 million in 2002. We have 900 farms occupying 5500 hectares and that has produced 4000 jobs. This industry—of which greenshell mussels make up 65 percent with national sales of $220 million—could earn $1 billion by 2020. That is $1 billion for New Zealand but we have had 5 years of a Labour Government that has sat on its hands and has not organised the aquaculture law reform legislation. So tonight we are debating yet again another extension to the moratorium because the Government has not managed to get the new law reform in place. 
The industry really wants this aquaculture law reform. It wants the process simplified; it does not want the two-consent process. But it can no longer support the tortuous convoluted process that has been proposed as the development of aquaculture management areas has become a bureaucratic nightmare. The only way we could actually see a change is to have a change of Government and a change of Minister to someone who understands the industry and can sort this mess out because 5 years of Labour Government has not done that. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: We haven’t had 5 years yet. 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT 
: Well it is getting close—it feels much longer than that. It has been 5 long years and it has been so boring. We are turning a sunrise industry into a sunset industry as Australia and Chile get out there and capture our markets. 
A member opposite said: “Oh boring” but I say to him that it is not boring to the men and women of New Zealand who have put their livelihoods and functions into this industry. Terry Schwass from the New Zealand Marine Farming Association who helped set up Queen Charlotte College’s course in marine farming—a great guy—said: “Well done politicians and bureaucrats. You have brought a once viable and vibrant industry to a standstill.” That is what this Government has done. Under National the industry was thriving vibrant and moving forward with 20 percent growth in the 1990s. Now it has 0 percent growth and this Government cannot deny that. If it wants the unemployment rate—which during the 1990s continued to decrease—to stay down and if it wants jobs then it has to do something about this industry instead of having a moratorium that stops its development. 
MITA RIRINUI (Labour—Waiariki) 
: 
 I want to take a reasonably brief call in this third reading of the bill. Before doing so I say that I think the previous speaker made some of the most outrageous statements I have ever heard in the House in relation to a number of issues. One issue was the “space for race”. If there was a race for space and space for race back in the time when National was in Government then Maori were not even at the start line. They would not even have had a look in. I think that the member forgot that. 
The next issue is that there really is a race for space in this particular industry and that is the very reason the moratorium bill was applied 2 years ago. The esteemed member for Whangarei Phil Heatley was a member of the Primary Production Committee at that time and he probably still is. The previous speaker stated that Mr Heatley would probably be the next Minister of Fisheries which is totally outrageous—and I think that he and the people of the north agree with me. 
Mr Heatley sat on that select committee and he is well aware of why the moratorium was necessary. The moratorium was probably described as a blunt instrument but had his party been vigilant in the 9 years it was in Government it would not have been necessary to apply this sort of instrument to a very important industry. National went to sleep on the job. The industry developed to the extent that our environment—in particular the Marlborough Sounds—was under threat from development particularly in the choking of waterways. Name it and it was happening in that industry. 
Of course marine farmers wanted to just proceed pillage plunder develop not take too much notice of the Resource Management Act requirements not have much concern about the environment and just keep going. The Minister at the time the Hon Pete Hodgson—although he has a lookalike in the House at the present time—made the decision to apply a moratorium and that is why we have it in place. It is necessary to extend it because a number of other issues have compounded this matter. I am sure that the previous speaker will appreciate that. 
As for Maori in the industry opposing this moratorium I think members of the select committee will recall that a number of Maori organisations had lodged applications with regional councils having made quite a large financial commitment in terms of developing their farms. They were seeking some flexibility from the Government to allow them to proceed. That was the only issue those people had. I think that the statements made in the House this evening were pretty incorrect. 
Jim Peters 
: That’s just not true. That was wrong. 
MITA RIRINUI 
: The member who interrupted was not even in Parliament at the time. That is how outrageous that member is. In fact a lot of his own people from up north were appreciative of the time given through this moratorium to allow them to develop so they could get up to the start line. He was not even in this House at that time. That is all I have to say about this matter. 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 I want to make a contribution to the debate on the Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill. There are three or four important points that I need to make. The first thing is as has been said in this House by previous speakers it is an absolute disgrace that we are here discussing this bill right now given that we were given an absolute assurance when the bill was introduced that this Government would sort the whole mess out in 2 years. It said it would need 2 years. I distinctly remember the Minister at the time— 
Hon David Carter 
: Pete Hodgson gave his word. 
JOHN CARTER 
: It was about the only thing he could give because he has nothing else to give—and that obviously did not work either. The point is that it has been 2 years and what has happened? Nothing! Absolutely nothing! Now the Government is saying that it needs another 9 months. I am happy to wager that we will be back here in 9 months’ time debating another extension. We will be taking up the time of the House using taxpayers’ money and having to listen to my colleagues like Phil Heatley explain why this should not be happening at the same time as the Government is determined to ram this sort of stuff through. It is just not good enough. It is not good governance. It is deplorable. 
Hon David Carter 
: It’s not governance at all. 
JOHN CARTER 
: It is not governance at all as my colleague David Carter says. 
There are a couple of issues that I have not heard anyone mention and I want to bring them into the debate. We are now seeing in regions like Northland—and indeed across the country—as part of this move regional councils going around advertising and having meetings about things called “AMAs”. I had a group of people come into the constituency clinic in Kaitaia on Monday. Those people were quite perturbed. They had brought in maps showing what had been proposed by the regional council. I must say that the council had tried under quite difficult circumstances to do its best with the issue but the problem is that councils are not getting support from the Government. The major concern is that aquaculture management areas are being advertised as “AMAs” because that is what the regional councils have been told to advertise them as and no one knows what an “AMA” is. 
Hon Member 
: So they don’t turn up. 
JOHN CARTER 
: So nobody turns up. In fact what happened up in Hauhora where this meeting took place was that somebody rang up Fish and Game after about half an hour and asked whether its members knew that the meeting was on. Three or four groups of people were invited but not the people directly affected—not the fishermen or the landowners. There were one or two people whom the regional council thought it had to invite so it let those people know about the meeting but most of the public did not know. So members of Fish and Game and one or two other people heard about it—by sheer chance—went along to the meeting and started asking some questions. 
The upshot was that the regional council postponed that meeting and held another one. Word of mouth got around and in the meantime the local people held a meeting themselves and there was a hall full of people who were suddenly concerned about what was being proposed. A significant part of their harbour and a whole chunk of their coastline was to be put aside for aquaculture purposes. Of course they were interested in it. They wanted to know. They wanted to be told. They have a right to have a say. They do not want a Government like this just ramming those things through and interfering with the rights and the usage that they have had for years but that is what is happening. It is being done by stealth. 
We have to be concerned about that. It would have been far better for this Government to have gone out there and said: “Listen. You people in New Zealand need to know that we are going to set this bay aside for fishing and commercial fishing purposes so that people can run their aquacultural commercial fishing enterprise here and you need to know about it.” But oh no not this lot! They are sneaky as! I know—and I know that my colleague Phil Heatley will confirm it—that there will be places right across New Zealand where the regional councils had meetings to which no one turned up because no one knew about them. The consequence is that these aquaculture management areas may well be passed and people will find out in a year or two’s time that they have suddenly got some sort of marine farm out in front of their bay or in their harbour inlet that they did not know about. I am absolutely concerned that this sort of legislation does not help people to know what is going on in their backyards. 
Even more important is that as we see in the Waikere Inlet there is now a conflict between aquaculture—in this case oyster farming—and residential development. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: And Maori. 
JOHN CARTER 
: And a number of other issues as well. But quite honestly they are not compatible. Somewhere somebody has to sit down—before we pass legislation and before we do the resource management—and decide whether we want to have an aquaculture industry. That is the first question to ask. Somebody needs to make that decision. If so then someone has to be brave enough to stand up and say that yes we do want to have an aquaculture industry and therefore we are going to set aside areas of New Zealand—on the sea and in inner harbours if necessary—where that will be the activity and there will be no residential development sewerage outlets or activities that will pollute those farms because they are not compatible. 
That is what happened in the Waikere Inlet. That is a classic example. Over a period of time—20 or 30 years—oyster farmers developed beds. Twenty or 30 years ago there was the odd bach dotted around. Some of them had a couple of outhouses but most of them were not significantly used so it was never a problem. Well over recent times there has been significant development and suddenly there is a problem with sewage—both from yachties and from some of the residential developments. There have certainly been problems with the Kawakawa sewage. Other things have also impacted on the oyster farmers’ livelihoods. 
The upshot is that there is now a conflict to the stage that most of those farmers up there have gone bankrupt. It is not their fault but it has become a major problem. Indeed it is an issue that is going before the courts to see whether it can be solved. But it will not be because the two things are not compatible. One cannot have residential development—which has to have outlets for sewage and all sorts of things in order to dispose of effluent and human waste—right alongside a fishing industry. 
Someone needs to sit down and say that yes we want to have an industry and yes we will be firm enough to say which areas will be set aside for the industry and which areas will be developed and by the way folks that means no residential development here because the two things are not compatible. 
An aquaculture industry would have to be developed through resource management and through this sort of legislation and when I see this Government coming back to the House with legislation containing proposals that are credible and that make some progress with this sort of thing then members will find that we will be able to make a positive contribution. But all we are getting today is: “Hey folks we just want another 9 months’ delay.” 
That is just not good enough. I say to the Minister and to the Government that that is not acceptable. That is why our party—as well as a number of other parties in the House I am sure—will be opposing this legislation. The Government has had 2 years to get this sorted out and I have heard nothing that convinces me that over that 2-year period it has made any progress. Quite honestly one would have thought that it could have because it has done nothing else. Surely to goodness in that 2-year period the Government could have made some progress with this industry and done some of the things that I have spoken about but I do not see any sign of it. My colleagues are shaking their heads and saying that they have not seen any signs of it. [ 
Interruption 
] Certainly another 9 months will not add to it. I am not convinced that it will. There is no reason why National should support this bill and we intend to vote against it. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 36 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Bill read a third time. 
Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Transitional Provisions and Controls) Amendment Bill 
Instruction to Committee 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Transitional Provisions and Controls) Amendment Bill that it take the bill part by part. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
In Committee 
Part 1 Preliminary provisions 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I am delighted to take a call on this Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Transitional Provisions and Controls) Amendment Bill. It is one that the National Party supports because at its heart is the intent to minimise costs to business and reduce barriers to innovation. However the National Party has some grave reservations about the process used by the Government in coming to the final conclusion of this bill’s passage through the House. Unfortunately the Government called for submissions over the Christmas break and was due to have the deliberations very shortly after that which really did not allow time for appropriate consideration. I think that on a bill such as this which is highly technical in nature and for which there is large approval across the parties it is important for the Labour Government to be prepared to go through a process that is well considered so that the optimal result might eventuate. Unfortunately the Government fell short of that. 
The purpose of the bill is to facilitate the smooth transfer of hazardous substances from transitional controls to the appropriate control regime under the principal Act. There are a huge number of substances. In fact out of 80000 substances only 8000 have been previously regulated. The Environmental Risk Management Authority had a huge task before it and there was no doubt that appropriate efficient and effective regulations to achieve it were sorely needed. I think it is important to point out the huge range of hazardous substances covered by this bill because they include just about anything that can be thought of from explosive substances to flammable oxidisable corrosive toxic or eco-toxic substances and the list goes on. That demonstrates the highly technical nature of the movement of something like 72000 of these substances into categories appropriate for their very different natures. That is what this bill does 
:  
it 
enables the application of cost-effective controls to hazardous substances; and facilitates their transfer from transitional controls to the controls under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act by changing the legal processes and constraints. 
That is the reason we have supported the bill. We recognise that minimising business costs is a very refreshing change from what this Labour Government usually does. In some of the other hazardous substances and new organisms legislation we have seen only more difficult regulatory regimes be put into place that have caused difficulties for everyday research institutes around the country. We saw just yesterday the Rubicon group point out that it was stopping its genetic research because the regulations recently put in place by the Labour Government were too onerous for it. That is a hugely worrisome thing for New Zealand; clearly as a country we stand to gain so much from the economic growth possibilities that arise from the innovation that research and wise regulations around it can bring. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First will support this bill although we are uncomfortable with some of the processes that were used to bring it to this particular point in time. 
One of those processes was alluded to by the previous speaker and that was the timing by which the bill went through the select committee hearings. In June 2003 a strategy was set up that this legislation would go through the House by 2003. The key date in all of this is 1 April 2004; a strategy was set up so that 500 substances could be moved on that date. We can see in the bill that the commencement of this legislation takes place on the day after the date on which it receives the royal assent—in other words as soon as possible after it goes through. The problem came about at the introduction of this bill in November with a report-back date of 13 February that had not been discussed with the select committee. That meant that submissions had to be received over the Christmas break then somehow heard processed considered and deliberated upon in time to get this bill back to the House 3 days after it began sitting. That was totally inappropriate and inconsiderate and in fact treated this House with a degree of contempt. Fortunately we were able to negotiate a bit of a delay so that the processes were more timely but I point out that that is not acceptable practice. As I say in some respects it is the executive treating this House with a little bit of contempt. 
The second element that has to be pointed out is that the purpose of this bill is “to facilitate the smooth transfer of hazardous substances from transitional controls to the appropriate control regime under the principal Act;”. In fact the principal Act says that there are a whole pile of hazardous substances that have to be transferred out of the Act that they were previously regulated by and into the hazardous substances and new organisms legislation. That is basically what this bill is about. Unfortunately the processes that were being used were just too slow. There were about 80000 of these substances and I think 100 have been processed so far. So the deadline of 2006 simply was not going to be met and a more streamlined process had to take place. 
But we have been led to a bit of confusion. I ask the Minister for the Environment whether she could clarify this for us. In the second reading speeches a number of members talked about 70000 substances that are not controlled. In fact we well know that they are controlled. Well when I look at the select committee report I find that that is exactly what it says—that 70000 are not controlled—and it says it precisely because we put it in on the advice of the officials. That has led to some confusion. The figures the committee members were given say that there are approximately 80000 existing hazardous substances 8000 of which were previously regulated—and this is the information we got from the officials—and that 100 new hazardous substances per annum come on stream and have to be put under controls. Further down is a flowchart of substances legally in New Zealand as at 1 July 2001 and it shows that yes there are approximately 80000 which are to be transferred to the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act and that there are approximately 100 new ones per annum. We do know that some have already been transferred although we are not too certain. But the numbers we have been given seem to be very very confusing: either 100 have not been given approval; or 70000 are uncontrolled with obviously no approval; or 72000 have approval and are legal but have not been transferred; or there are 80000 to be transferred. 
All I ask of the Minister is that she clarify this point so that members in their speeches from hereon in know what they are talking about. It would appear that the select committee report as I look back on it is not accurate although it includes the details we were provided with at the time. So I ask the Minister to provide clarification so that people know. We do not want the public out there thinking there are 80000 hazardous substances that are totally uncontrolled illegal and unapproved when that is not the case. The committee members were given quite confusing facts and figures which has led to some of the confusing statements. 
To complete in terms of Part 1 New Zealand First will be supporting it but we abhor some of the processes. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I want to clarify that Act and I am really appreciative of doing so because obviously I was away and I read the speeches and thought: “Oh gee!” The Toxic Substances Act which is the Act from which these toxic substances are being transferred to the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act required anyone importing a new toxic substance to notify the Ministry of Health. The theory was that the Ministry of Health would evaluate the notifications to determine which substances notified were hazardous enough to warrant placing on schedules. If a substance was placed on the schedules it was then and only then subject to regulatory control and specified requirements like all the things that we are talking about now. 
At the time the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act was enacted in 1996 there had been approximately 8000 notifications filed with the Ministry of Health over the previous 16 years since the Toxic Substances Act came into force. Notification as we understand from industry was widely disregarded by industry as no action seemed to result and it could not see the point of it. Over the following 5 years from 1996 when it could see the writing on the wall to the commencement date of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act the tally of notifications rose to a staggering—wait for it—215000. That is what came out of the woodwork. The chemical industry which we have been working with on this whole strategy recognised that this was the only way to gain the status of an existing substance under the proposed legislation—the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act the existing legislation—and therefore remain legally in use following the commencement of that Act. We do not know whether some of the notifications were brought forward because people were saying: “These are the things that we want to use.” or whether they were in use but I think it is quite safe to say that there are substantially more than 8000 toxic substances in use in New Zealand that have never been notified. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 The ACT party will also be supporting this legislation with some trepidation I might add. There are many aspects of the hazardous substances and new organisms legislation that we do not agree with but they are more detailed. What we see in this bill is a slight trend towards an attempt to reduce some of the horrendous compliance costs many of them unnecessary that are built into the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. 
What I was particularly concerned about however was to learn from the chairman of the Education and Science Committee about the appalling process he had to endure with the indecent haste and time constraints that this Labour Government as executive has put on that committee. This is important legislation and what I am really flagging is an issue that is becoming too common. Many select committees are now finding that they have an unreasonable time constraint put on them. There is not adequate time for public submission. The select committee process is important and I put it to this Committee that it is being abused in a very arrogant way by this Government which is trying to ram through legislation with indecent haste. It is happening far too frequently and it certainly is of great concern to me to hear the concerns of the chairman of the select committee Brian Donnelly with regard to this legislation. 
The bill covers a wide range of substances as has already been mentioned—some 72000. That is an enormous range of substances and as has already been pointed out it includes explosives corrosives oxidising agents reducing agents caustic agents and acidic agents—the works. Just about every aspect of industry and business has to use some such substance in its processes. But some of the aspects of the bill that it seems are an attempt to minimise some of the costs to business and streamline it are welcome. In particular the delegation of powers from the Environmental Risk Management Authority to local control I think is important. There will be less centralised control. We cannot expect the central body of the Environmental Risk Management Authority to be doing all the work on the ground. The delegation of those powers is a trend in the right direction as provided for by this bill. 
I understand too that the authority may vary the default controls to allow the choosing of the most cost-effective option. That is certainly an important improvement because we should always leave discretion with business and with those on the ground and at the coalface as it were to choose the most cost-effective option. They will know what best suits their particular application of the generic legislation. I also note that there is the issue of the non-hazardous compressed gaseous substances. Certainly there are many substances that in their natural state are not hazardous but if compressed can become highly hazardous. This bill as I understand it attempts to close that loophole of dangerous substances in their gaseous forms escaping the loop of the hazardous substances and new organisms legislation. That is all I would like to comment on at this stage. As I indicated the ACT party will be supporting this legislation but we believe that an awful lot more could have been done to streamline it. 
BERNIE OGILVY (United Future) 
: 
 I stand to support this Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Transitional Provisions and Controls) Bill on behalf of the United Future Party. This bill has many features in it and I think the intention all the way through has been to make it more user-friendly. One or two members have already spoken in this session about some of the confusion in terms of detail which the Minister has been able to give us some certainty about. We were bandying around all sorts of figures in the select committee and I am sure people were trying to clarify that to us but none of us could get it all together at the time. So we are sorry but now we are clearer and getting some of the history of it in the detail has helped to make it not so confusing. 
I think too and it has been well pointed out that some of the time constraints we were under added to that. I felt we were under real pressure and the chair of the Education and Science Committee has certainly made that point strongly. However some features in here are encouraging and I would like to touch on one or two of those—certainly the one dealing with the delegation by authority. I think this is a very good way of trying to get that large number down to zero by June 2006. I believe that is the intention of these transitional provisions. So to delegate authority out to employees of any person specified in section 97 of the principal Act or any enforcement officer with relevant experience I believe is a very very good idea to speed the process of getting these many thousands of notified toxic substances completely under control. 
Another feature that I thought was good and essential to the cost-effectiveness of the whole programme as well related to the appeals that exist. I noted when I was going through the bill that it was very good to see a provision in here for appeals at the District Court level. That is another means of speeding up the process with less heavy costs through other types of court procedures and legal costs. So I am very happy with that. I find it also encouraging that there are in the bill certain exemptions from regulations and these are as I understand it to grant a further speedy action to ensure that these hazardous substances will get through on and by the date and month in the year 2006. So I would just mention those few points as encouraging at this stage and repeat that United Future supports this bill through the Committee stage. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I want to follow on from some of the concerns about this bill that have been raised by my colleague Paul Hutchison and also by Ken Shirley. Despite what might be said about clarifying some of the numbers I have to sayI am more confused than ever. I listened with great care to what the Minister had to say because I was interested. I was concerned to know that what is contained in the select committee report is not accurate and I would like to put some questions to the Minister so we might get some clarification. If we reflect on this bill we are talking about an Act that was passed in 1996 about an incredibly important area and that is ensuring that toxic substances used in New Zealand are safe. Yet I am to believe that despite the fact that we are now 7 years down the track we are only a fraction through the transitional provisions. 
I say to the Minister that depending on which numbers we might use we can come up with some pretty amazing figures for the transition. If I am to believe the Minister’s latest figures that in fact that are 215000 of those substances to go through the process and if I am to believe the select committee chair—and I have no reason to disbelieve him—when he says we are doing 100 a year I have worked out that the transition will be completed in the year 2804. That is a pretty long transition period for any piece of legislation. I do not expect many of the children in the public gallery to live until the end of this bill’s transitional period—the year 2804. It is a wee way away! 
But if I am to believe the figures in the select committee report—that there are 80000 of these substances and 10000 have made it through the process—that means it will be the year 2080 before we get to the end of the transitional period under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. 
Jim Peters 
: That’s progress! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well I am not sure. I have to say that if that is how damn long it is going to take for this legislation to take effect then I truly think that this Parliament is kidding itself. It is not good enough. I have to say that I think the Minister has somewhat brought this problem on herself. With no disrespect to the very capable members on the Education and Science Committee I have to ask why it was that the Government referred this bill not to the Local Government and Environment Committee which has dealt with all the other issues associated with hazardous substances but to the Education and Science Committee on fast track. I will tell members why. It is because the Government is in a mad hurry. 
I say to the Minister that she has now been in this role for 4½ years. Why is it that she cannot have the select committee do the job properly rather than the much-constrained process that she forced on to Brian Donnelly and members of the Education and Science Committee? It is not good enough. It is not fair. The protection of our environment from hazardous substances deserves better than a constrained process where the select committee cannot do its job properly and where the chair of the committee does not even know whether his report is accurate and it deserves better than not being referred to the committee it should have been referred to—and that is the Local Government and Environment Committee which is very experienced with legislation of this sort. 
But I come back to the principal point. This Committee deserves clarification. How many substances are going to be required to be registered under the hazardous substances and new organisms legislation? Does the Minister know? I think it is a pretty important point. How many hazardous substances do we expect to be registered under the Act? Does the Minister not know? Does the Minister have no idea? Is the figure that is provided in the Education and Science Committee’s report accurate? The Minister is paid a salary. We deserve an answer. The ministerial car and all the other things that go with her role mean that this Parliament is deserving of answers. If the select committee report is inaccurate then we need to know. 
I also have to ask the Minister how many substances have actually been registered. Can the Minister answer that? The Minister does not know? The Minister is refusing to answer the question? Can the officials in the Chamber provide accurate answers to the simple questions? How many hazardous substances are there to register through this process how many are done and based on the current budget and schedule how long will it take? They are reasonable questions and the Committee deserves an answer. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 I was not going to take a call because I was not involved in the select committee process not being a member of the Education and Science Committee but I become concerned when I listen to the contributions by the chair of the committee the Hon Brian Donnelly and by my colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith. I become even more concerned when the Minister sits there solemnly and does not answer any of the questions raised. As I study the bill and the commentary on the bill it seems to me that in good faith this legislation was advanced as a means of minimising a lot of the significant cost burdens that have been thrust on industry by the original hazardous substances and new organisms legislation. If that be the case then I am supportive and as has been already stated by my colleague Dr Paul Hutchison the National Party supports the legislation. 
But I become concerned when there are so many examples of the Government spinning itself out of control by advancing legislation that it says is going to deliver a more cost-effective regime to industry and then we find when we take all the gloss and spin away that in actual fact this bill does not deliver as we as members of Parliament are told it will. So I think the Minister should take a call and take the opportunity of assuring us that this legislation will bring around a much-reduced cost structure to industry. 
The other point I want to pick up on is the superb point made by the Hon Brian Donnelly. He talked about the increasing disregard for the process of Parliament by which legislation is introduced in a rush and sent to a select committee with a very sharp report-back date required so that submissioners do not have the opportunity to sensibly construct a submission. The select committee often then does not have the opportunity to sensibly consider the submission before a report-back deadline is reached and the issue is back before the House. 
When we look through some of the legislation sitting on the Order Paper we see that this legislation has been rushed through. It was reported back from the select committee only 2 weeks ago. Yet a number of other pieces of legislation that were reported back over 12 months ago—the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill is one—still sit on the Order Paper. I see that some of the Labour members agree. It seems strange that there is such pressure to rush this legislation through and abuse the select committee process. Yet there is other legislation well and truly reported back for which people have made submissions under the due process and been given time to make sensible considered submissions on that for some reason sits on the Order Paper. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: The Conservation (Protection of Trout as a Non-commercial Species) Amendment Bill was reported 3 years ago. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: The Hon Ken Shirley identifies another bill that has been sitting on the Order Paper for 3 years yet we have this rushed process. So I support entirely the comments of the Hon Brian Donnelly because I think too often the Government in its rush to make sure the legislation does not get examined sufficiently does not make the opportunity available for people to make submissions and receive a considered and respectable airing at a select committee. It makes the people suspicious that in actual fact the objectives and the purpose of this legislation are not quite as the Government has described it. So the Minister can certainly take a call and take an opportunity of satisfying me that my fears are ungrounded. I think it would be admirable if the purposes of the legislation were fulfilled and the legislation as reported back meant that the cost structures—under which many many industries are operating and are affected by the original hazardous substances and new organisms legislation —are significantly reduced and I look forward to the Minister’s contribution in that regard. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 My difficulty is that I think I have a reputation for being reasonably conscientious and for reading papers and looking at them carefully. The questions I really want to satisfy myself on are how many hazardous substances we have in New Zealand and the status of those substances at the moment. I asked the Minister for some figures to clarify that but in fact she confused the issue even more. She is now talking about the possibility of 215000 toxic substances being present in New Zealand— 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: Notifications. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: OK. The figure we have is that there are approximately 80000 existing hazardous substances presumably captured under the old legislation—that is what I think because another chart states that they were legally in New Zealand as at 1 July 2001. Then the report states that approximately 8000 of them were previously regulated. So that leaves 72000— 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: Yes. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: Regulated non-regulated or what? We have it stated that 80000 substances are legal and 8000 were regulated. What has happened to the other 72000? How are they legal? I am then left with a figure of 70000 and I am told through the Education and Science Committee’s report—and I was there at the committee and we asked the officials precisely what the number was—that there are 70000 substances that are not official. That is the precise wording. 
I am left with a real confusion about the status and the number of the different hazardous substances in the country which this particular legislation now has to handle over the next 2 years. It only has 2 years in which to do that. What is the status of the hazardous substances and what are the numbers that we are talking about? At this particular point in time it would appear that if we have only done a few thousand from 2001 then we will not meet the deadline. So I do ask the Minister whether she can clarify that for me. As I say I think I have an average IQ and I think my maths is reasonable but I am getting more and more confused over that particular issue. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Madam Chair— 
JILL PETTIS (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Would the member please be seated. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I called a point of order before. 
Jill Pettis 
: No the member did not. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I have called the vote—[ 
Interruption 
] The member will withdraw and apologise for that remark. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I was trying to clarify in my point of order the discussion that occurred between the senior Government whip who has just moved the closure motion and the Chair and the Minister for the Environment. When questions were raised quite legitimately by the chair of the Education and Science Committee the Hon Brian Donnelly which the Minister refused to respond to I saw the three members discussing that they wanted closure. I think that is an inappropriate intervention. If you can clarify that for me I will be happy to withdraw and apologise. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member does not have the right to ask that question of the Chair. The member will withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I am concerned that I and the chair of the select committee have both raised quite legitimate questions about that point. We saw the Minister who was somewhat uncomfortable about those questions talking with you and with the senior Government whip and next minute a closure motion was moved by the senior Government whip and accepted by the Chair. I think the Committee deserves an explanation of that. We need to be satisfied that the Chair of the Committee is behaving in a neutral way and is not being influenced by the Government to stop answers being given to very legitimate questions. 
JILL PETTIS (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I am very happy to share with the Committee what I said. As members will know this is the last bill that I considered when I was on the Education and Science Committee and I said very casually to the Minister I had forgotten how short the bill was. That is what I said to her. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I will not let this go on. This is not a debate about the closure motion; members know quite well that they cannot debate that. I will put the motion. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 112 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 8 
ACT New Zealand 8. 
Part 1 agreed to. 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I want to raise with you a matter of procedure. I did not interrupt the vote because it was not appropriate to do so but just as you were taking the closure motion my colleague Dr Nick Smith sought a point of order. I was concerned that it took some time before his point of order was recognised. Every member in this Chamber has a right at any stage with one or two exceptions as we might be going through a procedural matter to raise a point of order. It may be that finally the Chair will decide that it was not a legitimate point of order but of course that cannot be judged until after the point of order is taken. 
I want your assurance that when a member—particularly from this side—raises a point of order it will be recognised immediately and dealt with appropriately in whatever way the Chair decides. It is not appropriate for the point of order to be refused by the Chair initially because the Chair may think it would do something to prejudge the procedure. I just want an assurance that points of order will be taken and recognised because it is important that that is a common part of our practice in this Chamber. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I acknowledge the point that Mr Carter is making. 
Part 2 and Schedule 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 A number of assertions were made in the debate on Part 1 and I think some of them actually touched on Part 2. There was an assertion—and I shall clarify the statistics—that it will take light years to get through the process because so many substances are outside the legislation. Extravagant claims were made about that. 
This wondrous piece of legislation was written in 1996. The purpose of the bill is to speed up the process. It allows the authority to issue a notice of transfer by notice in the  
Gazette 
. It removes the requirement to transfer substances through regulations. It has always taken ages for that to go through the required Cabinet committees and be written in the Parliamentary Counsel Office. That has been part of the problem in the past as the transfers have been worked through and it has slowed down the process through to the present time. 
Members also talked about the authority having the ability to assign practical cost-effective controls to hazardous substances rather than having to vary the default controls individually and do that by regulation. It had become ludicrous as people got into the actual business of transferring. April is the time line we are working to if this legislation is passed. We had a timetable to push this through. I thank the chair of the Education and Science Committee in that respect. There was a need for speediness. It was costing businesses in this country money. In April we hope that dangerous goods will be transferred; and in July pesticides—the scheduled toxic substances; and in post-July we will try to deal with notified toxic substances. 
I want to clarify one matter. The figure mentioned of 70000 is correct. The 215000 figure is to do with notifications under the old toxic substances legislation. That figure becomes 70000 notified toxic substances once we remove multiple notifications and substances that are not hazardous. The interesting thing is that that figure leapt from 8000 to 215000 once people started raising their hands saying: “I think I’m using or about to use a toxic substance.” They had to go through that whole process—if I am correct—of finding out what was multiple and what was toxic or not toxic to reduce that to 70000. I can assure people that we will not be going through a process that will take another 80 years. With the help of committee members I think we have a process that will keep this thing on time and online. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 It is interesting to hear the Minister now talk about 70000 substances. That is a new figure plucked out of the air. The advice to the Education and Science Committee was that there were 80000 substances of which 8000 did not require the process so that left 72000. At some stage I hope the Minister will take a call and be accurate about that issue. It is important because as I understand it we have been told that there is in the order of about 100 new substances per year that will in future have to be transferred. Once the backlog has been achieved that figure in itself is quite manageable. However I would like the Minister to take a call and assure us all that it is only 100 per year. After all there was confusion about the 215000 figure then the Minister said that it was 70000—when we know it is 72000. So we hope she will be able to guide us accurately because that is so important. 
Part 2 is the substance of the bill. Indeed it deals with the issue of delegation of powers by the Environmental Risk Management Authority. Undoubtedly there has to be a considerable amount of flexibility. Clause 4 gives the authority the power to decide any application for any permission or licence under Part VI or the revocation of any permission or licence under that part to any employee of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry any medical officer of health or any enforcement officer with relevant experience. If there is no employee or enforcement officer with relevant experience it can be any other person with the relevant experience whether or not that person is a member of the authority. 
My only concern is that clearly there needs to be a degree of conviction that that individual will have bona fide qualifications to be able to do the task in hand. I absolutely accept that under this situation it is right and proper to delegate to various parts of the country and to delegate the wide variety of hazardous substances that are available to people with the appropriate expertise. However it is hugely important to be able to assure the Parliament that the delegated person does indeed carry a qualification that we can have confidence in. 
Clause 5 inserts new section 77A “Authority’s power to impose controls and vary specified controls”. When one first reads that one becomes worried. Subsection (1) states: “The Authority may at the time it approves a substance for any purpose under this Act impose as controls under this section any obligations and restrictions that the Authority thinks fit.” On first looking at that new provision it seems to be extremely wide. However new subsection (4) states: “Before imposing a control under this section the Authority must be satisfied that against any other specified controls that apply to the substance—(a) the proposed control is more effective in terms of its effect on the management use and risks of the substance; or (b) the proposed control is more cost-effective in terms of its effect on the management use and risks of the substance or (c) the proposed control is more likely to achieve its purpose.” Undoubtedly these provisions must give a range of qualities that are hugely important and go to the nub of why we are supporting the bill. Hopefully there will be effectiveness efficiency and cost-efficiency associated with the transfer process. 
I note that the officials brought up a variety of issues and I am quite taken with the one about the level of control for Billy Peach flea powder. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Before I call the next speaker I should have announced that Part 2 which includes clauses 4 to 11 also includes the schedule. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 I guess that the confusion over the numbers proves the point about the need for select committees to have an appropriate amount of time to go through the issues carefully. I make that point because at this particular stage as I say I am still not too certain about the numbers; I think we will just agree that lots and lots of substances have to be processed. 
Given that lots and lots of substances have to be transferred from the various different Acts into the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act it is equally clear that the current transfer provisions are inefficient and are causing increased costs to Government and to business. It is for that reason that New Zealand First is supporting this legislation. We believe that something has to be done. Back in 1996 what was drawn up on paper looked good but when it was put into practice and tested it did not show up very well. The regulation process was obviously just too slow. So New Zealand First will be supporting this legislation on that particular basis. 
However questions have been raised about the regulatory framework in which this whole hazardous substances and new organisms process is operating and some very strong positions were taken on that. In fact I think it was agreed that significant work has to be done on those regulations. I ask the Minister for the Environment whether she can assure the Committee that the work that needs to be done is being done. Some people have suggested that we do not need this legislation but New Zealand First is not convinced; we believe that the legislation is needed but that significant work also needs to be done on the regulations. I ask the Minister to take a call to confirm for us that that work on the regulations which underpin all of this is actually being done. For example the tank wagon and compressed gas regulations are supposed to be in force by March 2004. If this legislation is to do what it is meant to do those deadlines have to be met. I ask the Minister to guarantee that those deadlines are being met. 
I would like to point out some of the impracticalities in the Act as it stands. One is that the controls change on the day a transfer takes place. On one day a business or an entity is acting under one regime and on the next day it is operating under another regime. It is pretty obvious from the field in which I and the Minister have more experience—education—that when we start doing that sort of thing we turn things into a nonsense. So this legislation in fact provides a means by which there can be a much more sensible transfer from one particular regime to the next regime. 
The next point I would like to make relates to something that once again came out of the select committee process—that is the issue over compressed gases. The committee became aware that a gas in itself is not a dangerous or hazardous substance. Oxygen in its natural form is not exactly hazardous; otherwise we would all be dead. But once a gas is compressed regardless of its natural form it becomes hazardous per se. The bill in the way it was drawn up did not accommodate that reality but as it has progressed through it has accommodated it. 
Also some other issues were raised that this bill does not cover but on which further work needs to be done and I think they need to be mentioned. One example is whether a company that becomes bankrupt can just say that it is getting rid of all its hazardous substances and that it is no longer responsible for them. Certainly as a result of this legislation further work will be done on that particular issue. 
New Zealand First believes that this legislation is necessary. We would have hoped it would be processed in a far better fashion but we believe that what is suggested in it is a far more sensible approach to the whole issue. The bill gives greater flexibility and gives the Environmental Risk Management Authority greater powers of delegation to local decision-making. Therefore New Zealand First will support it. However we hope the Minister will answer some of those pressing questions on the development and the fixing up of the regulations as they stand. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I want to make a number of points about Part 2 and the provisions that provide for the transfer and transition of hazardous substances into the new regime. I thank the Minister in the chair the Hon Marian Hobbs for some clarification of the numbers and I seek some further assurances. 
I understand that 215000 notifications have been made and that many of those substances are either non-toxic and do not need to go through the process or that some doubling up has occurred as compared with the new provisions so that we are dealing with about 70000 substances. I am not going to get too upset as to whether there are 70000 or 72000 but I am still concerned that about 8000 to 10000 I understand have got through the system to date. I also note as I understand the legislation that the transitional provision needs to be completed by June 2006 which is 2 years away. It seems to me to be very ambitious even with the transfer provisions that we will be able to get roughly 35000 substances per year through the hoops in time for June 2006. I would like some indication from the Minister as to whether she is confident that the ministry and most important the Environmental Risk Management Authority will be able to reach that timetable. Some clarification from the Minister on that point would be very helpful. 
The second point I want to raise is that as it seems so many substances are used in New Zealand the sooner we move to greater international recognition of these the better. I note for instance that the globally harmonised system of classification and labelling of chemicals is a huge step forward in reducing some of the bureaucracy of this. I want some reassurance from the Minister that we are moving at the front end of the pack internationally in the application of globally harmonised systems. As New Zealand is a little country of 4 million people and has a strong agricultural base that uses a huge diversity of chemicals and substances it would make good sense for us to maximise the use of globally harmonised systems to minimise compliance costs and in my view also to maximise safety. That is the second point I would like the Minister to respond to. 
The third issue relates to some of the regulations that are required to make this part of the bill work. I note for instance that the ministry and the Environmental Risk Management Authority had promised that the new safety regulations for tank wagons and compressed gases would be in force by March 2004. It is March now. Has the ministry met that timetable? I can see the Minister nodding. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: Yes. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Is that the case for both tank wagons and compressed gases? 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: The tank wagons part. I have to check the other one. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Could she provide me with some clarification as to whether the ministry has reached its timetable for March 2004? 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: Both have been done. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: That is to the credit of the ministry and I acknowledge that. 
Finally I come to the bigger issue which is whether the thresholds being set around toxicity are really at the right level. When this legislation was put together back in the 1990s we were trying to sort out what was and what was not toxic. It seems somewhat extraordinary to me that the net has been thrown so widely that we are picking up 80000 substances. I have talked with my own constituent companies in Nelson and they have told me some of the things that have been defined as toxic substances. I remember that a particular type of tape used for wrapping fruit products had been deemed a toxic substance and would need to go through the system. It seems that we have thrown the net too wide and that we are picking up too much when if we focused just on those things that are genuinely toxic and present some risk to the environment or to public health we would be doing a more thorough and better job. 
I ask the Minister to comment in respect of Part 2 and the schedules on whether we will get some greater clarification around that and not pick up so many substances. We could then perhaps get a regime that does focus on those substances that really are toxic—substances that we do need to take care with and have a pretty rigorous regularity regime around—and not include a whole lot of materials and substances that are in practice pretty harmless. I would appreciate the Minister’s clarification on those points. 
BERNIE OGILVY (United Future) 
: 
 United Future believes that this legislation is needed and that it is overdue. That is why we strongly support this legislation. I shall refer to one or two of the things that have been mentioned. 
I noted that when the Education and Science Committee was asking questions of the officials a comment was made that this bill would certainly not be the last amendment to the hazardous substances and new organisms regulations. That gives me some comfort—not necessarily full comfort—in respect of the questions that have been asked around the Chamber. It tells me that as we move along there will be little wires we trip over and things that need to be tidied up. My colleagues asked for instance whether sufficient regulations were in place to cover what we now know. I am sure there are not. That is my question. I think that as one of the officials admitted there will be further amending legislation coming through to tidy up as we go along. That encourages me as I said in my earlier speech. 
I am comforted by the fact that there are in this bill in any case sufficient hand-holds to speed up the process and to ensure that the things we do know at least are done and are properly classified. The gazetting arrangements that this bill allows for certainly go in that direction—ensuring that the licences are set up and the permissions are made. At the end of the day I think all of this comes down to labelling so that everybody has clarity about a whole range of substances. Even if they have a common base chemical in them they will have one range. Fly spray as I seem to recall was one of the illustrations used. There will not be a regulation for every fly spray— 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: One has to get a licence to use it. 
BERNIE OGILVY 
: I agree; we need some directions on how to use it. There needs to be a regulation stating: “Put finger on top and squirt.” “Push here and not down here.” or something like that. 
Those labelling issues tie up to Dr Smith’s question. He raised the matter of international standards. As we all know New Zealand is part of a global village and as we go around the world we are starting to realise that there are international symbols for virtually everything from driving on roads to whatever. I want to be assured that for hazardous substances there is an international standard that we are conforming to or at least that we are setting the pattern for everybody else to follow us. Would that not be remarkable in itself? 
I take on board what this bill is trying to do. I endorse it and the sooner we get under way with all the detail the sooner I am sure the officials and others will be able to tell us how many of these numbers we will have to legislate for yet again or make amendments for to tidy up what is left over. As I said at the beginning United Future endorses this bill and would love to see it in place so that we can get the actions that are required. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 As I said before Part 2 is certainly the substance of this bill. As we have noted the range of substances is absolutely huge. It varies enormously from cleaners to flea powder to explosives to pesticides and hence the need for the tremendous flexibility that the bill contains. I was quite fascinated by some of the colourful substances that were brought to our attention by the Education and Science Committee. Unfortunately I was not there to receive the information but as I read it one that caught my imagination related to section 77A “Authority’s power to impose controls and vary specified controls” in clause 5—that is the level of control for Billy Peach flea powder. I guess that is the sort of thing all of us who have had a dog or anything to do with a dog— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I don’t have fleas. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: My colleague assures me that it is not he who has fleas but I am really thinking more of our canine friends. The point made here is that— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Don’t talk about the Government like that. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: I would not talk about the Government like that for a moment! The point made here was that the authority was proposing to delete all approved-handler controls for flea powders but it requires that the bill be passed in order for it to make that deletion. The really important thing is that indeed it is right and proper that the people who deal with bulk flea-powder purchase and distribution be official handlers but it would be quite ludicrous if every flea-powder user throughout the country also had to be an official handler and indeed that is one of the things that the bill does away with. 
The question of transfer is absolutely relevant in terms of enabling the authority to transfer substances from the transitional regime to the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act regime. I take up the point raised by my colleague Dr Nick Smith. Section 160A(5) in clause 10 states: “Before issuing a notice of transfer under this section the Authority must—(a) consider the best international practices and standards for the safe management of hazardous substances;”. That is absolutely relevant in this highly interconnected world where hazardous substances are being moved from country to country. New Zealand is expected to take on at least 100 per year although I can easily see that number varying from year to year—sometimes it might be much more and sometimes it might be less. It is hugely important to have best international practice and standards. 
The other thing that is required is that the authority must “do everything reasonably practicable on its part to advise all persons who in its opinion may be affected by the notice of transfer”. That is always a difficult task for an authority because it is left with discretion. I think that is right and proper. It is part of the flexibility. Hopefully the Minister will make sure that there is a clear intention to monitor it to ensure that it does indeed work. This is the sort of thing where individuals may be left out of the loop inappropriately. 
The last thing I want to mention is in section 160B “Controls may be imposed for purposes of notice of transfer” in clause 10. Subsection (4) states: “Section 77A(4) does not apply for the purposes of subsection (1) if—(a) the control being varied on transfer relates to a previous management practice; or (b) the control being deleted on transfer existed under Parts XI to XVI …”. With regard to that I noted that the Ministry of Health pointed out that this section enables the authority to delete default controls where no such control applied. The example given was fly sprays. 
Hon TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Minister of State) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 92 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 28 
New Zealand National 27; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
Part 2 agreed to. 
Schedule agreed to. 
Clause 1 Title 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I want to make a few points in respect of the title because this bill is one of a number of hazardous substances and new organisms bills that we have seen in the last couple of Parliaments. My real question I wish to put to the Minister for the Environment is whether we finally have it right. The truth is the Education and Science Committee was under pressure and had to rush the bill through. I am surprised that the Minister having had so many difficulties with this particular Act would not have wanted to be absolutely sure that with such complex law we had got it correct. I want some reassurance that before June 2006 when the transitional provisions are complete we do not get another Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Amendment Bill because somehow we got something wrong this time as we again rushed an amendment bill through. So my challenge to the Minister is to stake her reputation on finally having it right. Having put Parliament under pressure having sent the bill to the wrong select committee and having given a time constraint much tighter than is normal for the scrutiny of bills—let alone bills as complex as this one—is the Minister going to stake her reputation on her and her officials finally having got it correct? 
Hon David Carter 
: What reputation? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: My colleague asks what reputation; I will be generous and say that we simply want assurances that finally with this amendment bill—No. 4 I understand since 1996—we have it correct. 
I also wish to have some reassurance that we have the resources and the other things in place to ensure that by June 2006 we truly are going to be in business and that we are not going to have another Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Amendment Bill that proposes to extend the transitional period beyond June 2006. I remind the House that June 2006 will mark 10 years of transition since the substantive Act was passed. On those points we want some reassurance. 
In terms of the title perhaps we should call the bill the “Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (This Goes on Forever) Bill” or some other words could be added if we wanted as a Parliament to be more sarcastic about the frustration felt about the long transition that is being required to make this legislation work. So if the Minister would respond to those points it would help in terms of a speedy transition of the title debate. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 Just to respond to that I think this is a particular piece of legislation that was designed for the transfer processes that were absolutely stymied. There will be possibly some further amendments to this bill because if we look at the select committee record we will see that it talks about a draft discussion paper. A year ago we went out to industry and could see some of the problems facing the transfer process and this particularly complex legislation. The industry came back to us with some ideas. Part of that is in the discussion paper that it wanted and that we will look to for some possible further legislation. 
I want to make one other point. Yes I think we are almost at the leading edge but I am a bit nervous about getting too far ahead. We are part of the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals and all that that means but that is fairly new as well. There is some difficulty at the moment with the European Union wanting to begin some processes towards using chemical assessment that may act more as a trade barrier so we have to be very careful. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 In referring to the title of the bill the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Transitional Provisions and Controls) Amendment Bill we have to say that it probably is an accurate description of what the bill tries to do. But I would like to bring something to the attention of the Committee in order to help answer the question asked by the previous speaker—will the bill enable the transfer of all existing hazardous substances by July 2006? 
I am quoting from the departmental report which states: “There are two groups of substances that warrant further explanation in answer to this question. These groups are: the notified toxic substances or NOTS and the non-hazardous compressed gases.” We have talked about the non-hazardous compressed gases which are dealt with within the bill but this is what the report has to say about the notified toxic substances which I think is pertinent to what we have been talking about: “There are approximately 70000 hazardous substances that are not presently controlled.” Therein lie some of the issues around the statements made in that select committee report back and also in the speeches made during the second reading. “These are known as the NOTS. In order to achieve the completion of transfer by July 2006 the bill must enable transfer of the NOTS in groups. Groups are based on the controls needed to manage the risks of these substances as it is the controls that enable achievement of the purpose of the Act.” In other words section 160A and section 160B actually deal with some of the issues about whether the deadline will be met. I just rise to bring that to the attention of the Committee so that we clarify some of those issues around the numbers. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 As I speak to the title of this bill it does give my heart considerable quivers to hear the Minister say that there may be possible amendments to this bill in the future. I think that is absolutely right. Indeed it does sort of back up the view of my colleague that this bill could be called the “Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Labour Government This Will Go on Forever and Ever) Bill” and that is a worry. [ 
Interruption 
] No the Labour Government will not; I am talking about the bill. I make that absolutely clear. The Government has got less than 18 months. 
Indeed the thing that was hugely concerning about this bill was the fact that the process was so rushed. I was quite surprised to hear the Minister say that this was costing the Government in New Zealand a fair amount of money every day. That is true. Why on earth did the Government not bring it in considerably earlier so that indeed it could have been deliberated on in an appropriate way? There was a conscientious chairman Brian Donnelly of the Education and Science Committee ready to ensure that the deliberations would be appropriate but oh no the Labour Government had to rush it in after 3 days of the House coming back from the break. 
Perhaps the major reason that the National Party did support this bill was the fact that we certainly perceived and believe that it is business-friendly. So perhaps the name should be the “Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Labour Government’s Attempt at Long Last to Minimise Costs and Cut Down on Bureaucracy) Bill.” Undoubtedly the major thrust is to minimise costs and reduce barriers to innovation which is so hugely important for New Zealand. 
In fact when one considers the previous hazardous substances and new organisms bills that this Labour Government has brought in and the difficulties that the biotechnology research sector is having with them then one considers that it will be unfortunately necessary to review the whole Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act that has eventuated particularly from the amendments of the Labour Government. There was an opportunity after some years of the Act being in existence to make it more effective and efficient but so far the Government has not done that apart from this bill which we support. 
So that is why my heart does go down with trepidation when I hear the Minister saying: “More amendments” and I would urge the Minister to keep in mind if she is going to put in amendments to take advice from or consideration of the Biotechnology Taskforce which said we should at least in making those regulations observe international best practice and make them transparent make them predictable and ensure that there is cost-minimisation and that indeed the legislation reduces barriers to innovation. 
BERNIE OGILVY (United Future) 
: 
 I shall be very brief. On speaking to this substantial bill titled the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Transitional Provisions and Controls) Amendment Bill I want to put on record that despite all the questions about the title it is a reasonably good title. If members focused on one word in the title it would either alarm or quell our suspicions. It is the word “transitional”: that could mean anything. 
 It is not in the past tense; it is in the present continuous tense which allows for further amendments to take place. It also gives us the picture that this is really what it is all about. It is a transition issue and if we took the other words “Provisions and Controls” as separate we could take from this that the bill is reasonably well named in light of the transition of all the substances that is yet to happen by June 2006. If there are others beyond that I will not be surprised as some people have already questioned. If it gets completed by then I guess we will all be so happy that we might award the Minister some sort of prize. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I was totally confused by the speaker who has just resumed his seat and I seek clarification from the Minister on this very important point. I thought I understood this bill until the United Future member took a call and his speech has thrown me into a mass of confusion. My clear understanding was that the substantive Act provides for a set transitional period through to 2006 and that this bill deals merely with transitional measures within that time but listening to—I do not know quite how to describe it—the contribution perhaps from the member from United Future the Government’s coalition partner I am totally confused now. I think there is an onus on the Minister to clarify it for the House as that confusion was introduced. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 The member is correct. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Bill reported without amendment. 
Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 2) 
Third Reading 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister of Fisheries) 
: 
 I move  
That the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time 
. This bill implements a settlement agreed between the Crown and the commercial seafood industry concerning the under and over-recovery of conservation and fishery levies since 1994. The intent of the bill is to provide a full and final resolution of all cost recovery issues up to 30 September 2002. This ensures that each and every levy order relating to any period on or before that date may not be the subject of any legal challenge on any basis. This is a technical and complicated issue that has taken both hard work and goodwill to resolve. 
First of all I would like to thank the members of the seafood industry and the Ministry of Fisheries who have worked on this issue over a number of years. The solution reflects a collaborative approach to this longstanding issue and provides a sound basis for moving forward. I take this opportunity also to thank the members of the Primary Production Committee for the very solid work they put in on this bill which ensured that it had majority acceptance when we considered it at the Committee of the whole House yesterday and I thank in particular the chair of the select committee David Carter who took the bill through the Committee. 
The second function of this bill is to amend section 233 of the Fisheries Act 1996 to ensure that the law reflects the original parliamentary intent. This section contains the Act’s highest band of offence provisions and is aimed at serious offending including poaching black market and fraud offences. The bill rectifies a drafting error to ensure that this kind of serious offending is subject to appropriate offence provisions. This bill ensures that those people who knowingly contravene the Act understand that they are stealing from the whole community by taking a natural resource for their own benefit or with intent to obtain such a benefit and are committing an imprisonable offence. This bill will give the Ministry of Fisheries the power to take effective enforcement action against those people who knowingly act in that manner. 
Finally this bill introduces a technical amendment to place it beyond doubt that the word “Act” as used throughout the Fisheries Act 1996 includes rules and regulations made under the Fisheries Act 1996. I support this bill as it provides a basis for the commercial fishing industry to progress forward in relation to cost recovery issues and provides for effective penalties relating to serious offending to further protect our most important fishing resource. I commend the bill to the House. 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I stand on behalf of my National Party colleagues— 
Hon David Carter 
: And friends. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
:—and friends and I support the Minister in his statement regarding this bill. As the Minister said the bill ensures full and final settlement of historic under and over-recovery of levies under-spent by the Ministry of Fisheries and the Department of Conservation over a large number of years—I might add an unacceptably large number of years. It also seeks to ensure that any reference to “Act” in the Fisheries Act 1996 includes both the Act and any regulations and rules made under it. We encountered some time ago a number of poachers who could not be prosecuted under regulations that were inadequate at that time. So we are fixing that and anyone who plunders our seas now will not have that loophole as a means of escape. 
The cost recovery regime was introduced into fisheries legislation in 1994—members will recall that. That allowed the Crown to recover the cost of fisheries and conservation services associated with commercial fishing. The Minister of Fisheries must have regard under those provisions in the Act to any under-recovery and over-recovery of costs in a previous year when setting a new levy order. The interesting issue that came about with this legislation was that up until now Ministers of Fisheries have considered the previous year when setting the future year’s levies. In this particular case the Minister now has to consider a series of years when setting a new levy order. However there was a recent recognition of a failure to consider historic under-recovery and over-recovery levies of previous years when setting the 1997-98 and 2001-02 levy orders. It was recognised in 2002 when Parliament passed the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Act. That Act came about because a couple of fisheries companies were smart enough and determined enough to challenge the Ministry of Fisheries and the Department of Conservation on the levies that they had charged up until that time. 
Since 1999 the Ministry of Fisheries has worked in a joint working-group which recommended the settlement of $24.1 million and a few extra thousand dollars of interest as a rebate to future levy payers. We as the National Party have supported this bill all the way through and we certainly recommend that the entire House support this bill tonight in its third reading. This is for three reasons: firstly it fulfils the agreement coming out of the passing of the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Act; secondly it supports an agreement that came out of the joint working-group that included representatives of the Seafood Industry Council which represents the lion’s share of the commercial fishing industry and so it has wide industry support; and thirdly when considering the opposition to the bill and the reasons for it we find that although they are fair enough we believe that on balance those parties do not put up a strong enough case for us to oppose this bill. 
 Opposition to the bill comes from those who believe that the distribution of the $24 million as a reduction of future levies is unfair to those who paid cost recovery levies in earlier years and who have since left the industry. They argue of course that they should also be beneficiaries of a cash refund even though they sold their quota and their businesses. Usually one would find that if someone sold his or her business he or she would sell all bills and all income with the business. Those people are arguing that although they have sold the business they should have access to the refund. However the settlement is consistent with the cost recovery regime where under-recovery is to be debited and over-recovery to be credited in a future period to the same general group of levy payers but not to a specific levy payer. The bill takes a holistic view. It is concerned with the benefit that services deliver to the industry not to individual fishers. With that in mind the National Party happily supports this bill and we would like to see it pass its third reading this evening. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First likewise is happy to support the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 2) in its third reading. There is no question that overcharging of levies took place. In spite of the arguing over semantics this bill is designed to redress that situation—to return a large part of the overcharged levy to people who are still within the fishing industry and offset it against future levies. We believe that not only is that the fairest way it could be done it is the only way it could be done. New Zealand First is very very happy to support this bill. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 I do not intend to take long in making a contribution to this legislation—[ 
Interruption 
]—because as Phil Heatley interjects behind me he has said it all and it is legislation that is completely supported by the Primary Production Committee. 
As chair of that committee I want to take this opportunity to thank my fellow members for the way they worked through this legislation. I particularly want to thank the officials who helped us and Mr Murray from the Ministry of Fisheries who I thought did a superb job answering some difficult issues for us with regard to the submissions we received—particularly from tuna and scallop fishers who tended to have left the industry over a period of time. 
This legislation is before the House because the Fisheries Act of 1996 was not implemented as we politicians thought it would be. It is with some regret that we are here now passing an amendment bill to tidy up that Act. I hope that in future we can have confidence that the officialdom of both the Department of Conservation and the Ministry of Fisheries will take care and accurately allocate levies to the various species so that we are not back passing similar legislation in another 8 years’ time. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 The ACT party will also support the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 2). The point has been made that there was clearly mismanagement of the levying system. I think I am the only member of this House who actually sat on the committee that did the substantive legislation in 1986. [ 
Interruption 
] I am talking about the Fisheries Act of 1986 which first introduced the quota management system provided the levying procedures and indeed the resource rentals which are with us no more. 
It is regrettable that fisheries legislation has for generations been a very difficult area of public policy. It is very prescriptive by nature. Certainly in this case the regime of levies collection was not what the politicians envisaged. In other words the bureaucrats—or the Government department with responsibility for that area—departed from the intent and object of Parliament. That has been found to be so and in a way this bill represents Parliament’s attempt to remedy that. There is a bit of rough justice associated with it but having looked at the bill I think it has been done in the best way possible. So to that extent we will be supporting the bill. 
IAN EWEN-STREET (Green) 
: 
 Last week was Seaweek. It had the theme “our amazing marine life—let’s protect it”. That is a fine sentiment indeed but how can we protect it when we know so little about it? Not only do we know almost nothing about the marine ecosystems from which we extract fish but we also know very little about the species we catch for their commercial value. The Ministry of Fisheries acknowledges that estimates of stock status and sustainable yield are available for fewer than half the stocks in the quota management system in 2003. Still less is known about those species it is planning to add to the quota management system this year. 
We know so little because we do too little research on anything other than stock assessments. Marine and fisheries research is currently funded through the conservation services levy and the fisheries services levy—which is funded by the Ministry of Fisheries from non-levy funds—and by the Foundation for Research Science and Technology. The conservation and fisheries levies are set each year taking into account any over or under-expenditure of the levies from the previous year after consultation with the industry. The conservation services levy can be used only for studying the effects of the interaction between commercial fishers and protected species. It is designed to develop measures to mitigate the effects and the development of population management plans. The Department of Conservation typically over spends on conservation services levies by about $1.5 million per year and gets a top-up annually in the Budget. 
On the other hand the fisheries services levy can be used only for the management of fisheries; enforcement of provisions related to fisheries fishing and fish farming; research relating to fisheries fishing and fish farming including stock assessment and the effects on the aquatic environment; or carrying out the functions of the ministry with respect to fisheries fishing or fish farming. In practice the research funded by the fisheries services levy is mostly used for stock assessment. About $1 million is used for studying the impacts of fishing on the aquatic environment. In other words the overwhelming portion of the fisheries services levy is used for assessing how much fish is there for people to catch. Practically nothing of it is used for studying the impact on the aquatic environment. 
Services that are provided in the general public interest rather than in the interest of an identifiable person cannot be recovered. They must be funded either through non-levy Ministry of Fisheries funds or through the Foundation for Research Science and Technology. For the period between 1994 and 2002 the conservation services levy totalled $8550000 whereas the fisheries services levy totalled $262780000—a huge difference. In 2003 alone the conservation services levy was $2.65 million and the fisheries services levy $31.33 million. The huge difference is partly due to what each of them can be spent on but it also reflects the emphasis on resource extraction rather than resource system management. 
A critical part of both fisheries and conservation services research is the observer programme which assesses target catch and non-target by-catch. That is essential work for the functioning of the quota management system and for assessing the interaction of fishing with non-target species. Between 1995 and 2003 the programme cost a total of $17 million at an annual rate of between $1.8 and $2.6 million. The conservation services levy pays about one-third of the cost of the observer programme in order to cover the by-catch assessment role of observers. 
Some fisheries such as toothfish are required to have observers on board while others are not. Although there are practical difficulties in having observers on all vessels on every trip vessels can be monitored by remote means and that technology should be developed and utilised fully. No vessel should be permitted to take from the commons unless it carries either observers or remote monitoring devices. 
 There appears to have been a recent increase in the number of observer days performed but they still fall far short of what is required. Fishers are not required to give more than 24 hours notice of their intention to sail and it is often difficult to get observers to the port of departure quickly enough to get them on board. Even if this is achieved a vessel may divert to a different fishery from the one for which observation is required. These factors all make the observer programme less effective than it needs to be and we need much greater cooperation from the fishers. It is after all in their long-term interest to have observers. 
An effective observer programme while necessary is far from sufficient to enable effective management of the fisheries in New Zealand waters. There are many individual areas of research that are needed but which have not been getting funding—or getting enough funding. Some of these areas of research are as follows: first the southern right whale of which there are only 13 breeding females left; second Maui’s dolphin of which there are perhaps only 100 individuals left; third the impact of marine farming on inshore nutrient flows and recruitment of other pelagic species as well as on migration of offshore species; fourth the use of molecular biology for biodiversity work especially with invasive and cryptic species; fifth the flow-on effect of marine reserves to unprotected populations; sixth the baseline information for areas where aquaculture management areas are proposed so that we can know if there are any adverse effects and so on. 
There are any number of areas where we need to do more research. In particular we need to do more life-cycle research. I mentioned before that in 2003 less than half the species in the quota management system had their lifestyles properly understood. From my understanding of the 32 species in the quota management system a couple of years ago profound knowledge of life cycles was known in relation to only seven species. 
But there is a more profound problem with the funding of fishing research in New Zealand and this is reflected—and partly caused—by the Department of Conservation’s levy the fisheries services levy and the quota management system itself. A belief seems to have evolved that the quota management system is sufficient for achieving sustainable fisheries. It is true that it has removed subsidies and it also caps fishing effort and in these ways it helps to prevent over-harvesting. However it has resulted in an overemphasis on stock assessment without enough understanding of the ecosystems within which these stocks exist. Although the Ministry of Fisheries could broaden and deepen the scope of the research it contracts for it appears constrained both by its blind adherence to the quota management system and the fact that most of the research is cost-recovered from the industry through the fisheries service levy and is hence subject to industry influence. Some say that the industry funds 70 percent of fisheries research through levies so most of the research is short term and stock based. 
We need to uncouple the payments by fishers from specific stock-related research to enable the Ministry of Fisheries to allocate more money to long-term research rather than the $1 million or so that is currently allocated for impact-assessment research. We could then address questions such as the key elements affecting the abundance of species or the influence of environmental variation and fishing on population sizes or targeted species and also for other species some of which are not very visible in the ecosystem. We cannot continue with the unscientific attitude that exists within the ministry that says in effect that a species of fish has been caught at a certain level for a while now so it must be sustainable. 
It is very hard to see how the ministry’s strategic view that we must protect the health of the aquatic environment can be implemented by the funding we have at the moment. We certainly need to change the basis on which that funding is developed. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to speak on the third reading of the bill. 
John Carter 
: Take a short call! 
LARRY BALDOCK 
: I thank the member for that advice. United Future listened with interest to the debate in the Committee predominantly because we did not have a member on the select committee. It has been very informative for us to listen to the issues being debated in the Chamber and I thank those members who have made a very positive contribution to the debate. Phil Heatley from the National Party gave some very clear examples of the issues involved in the bill and I think he has done an excellent job. I also thank Doug Woolerton for his contribution and the Minister the Hon David Benson-Pope for his answers and explanations of some of the issues that have been raised. 
We are happy to see the bill arrive at its third reading because it is an issue that has been around for a long time. It has been a major cause of concern within the fishing industry and it is time for it to be resolved so that the industry can move on. We are pleased to be able to support the bill in its third reading today. 
One of the issues that has not been debated quite as much in the Committee but is part of what is dealt with in this bill is closing some legal loopholes with regard to illegally obtained seafood around our coastline. The only thing that I want to add to the debate this evening is to emphasise again how important it is for us to continue to investigate these loopholes. The Ministry of Fisheries needs to have the resources at its disposal to effectively police our fisheries regulations with regard to the poaching that is occurring around our coastline which is leading to the depletion of our very valuable resources. 
This bill makes some amendments to that and I believe it will be very beneficial to the nation and to the economy as a whole. With that I am happy to indicate United Future’s support for the third reading. We commend the bill to the House. 
Bill read a third time. 
The House adjourned at 9.17 p.m.