Volume 610 Week 31 - Thursday 31 July 2003 
Volume 610 Week 31 - Thursday 31 July 2003 
[Volume:610;Page:7505] 
Thursday 31 July 2003 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House it is intended to deal with the first reading of the Crimes and Misconduct (Overseas Operations) Bill the second reading of the Responsible Gambling Bill and to make progress on the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill and the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill. On Wednesday the first item of business will be the third reading of the Appropriation (2003/04 Estimates) Bill and all stages of the Imprest Supply (Second for 2003/04) Bill. This of course is a 3-hour debate. 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 Can the Leader of the House give us any indication of whether we will be in urgency next week? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 At this stage I cannot give any such indication. It depends on matters that are not totally within my control. 
Voting 
Correction 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) 
: 
 For the vote on the Death with Dignity Bill last night I inadvertently missed Heather Roy’s proxy vote. I apologise to you Mr Speaker and to the House and I seek the leave of the House for Heather Roy’s vote for the Ayes to be recorded. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that to be done. Is there any objection? There is not. It will be so done. The result is now declared as Ayes 58 Noes 60 Abstentions 1. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I just want to clarity that result from the vote last night. By adding 1 to the Ayes how did it take 1 off the Noes? Could you clarify it? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It did not. There was one person who did not vote. 
Questions to Ministers 
Workplace—Skill Levels 
1. MOANA MACKEY (NZ Labour) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education) 
: How is the Government working with business and unions to raise the skill levels of the New Zealand workforce? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education)) 
: 
 This morning I travelled to Format Print in Petone where Carol Beaumont from the Council of Trade Unions Simon Carlaw from Business New Zealand and I launched the  
Skill New Zealand 
 brand—and this is it in my hand—for our tripartite campaign to lift the number of people in workplace learning from 106000 to 250000. The Government has committed $800000 for resource and promotional material to support this campaign. This will complement the efforts of the other partners and industry training organisations to promote industry skills acquisition in the workplace. 
Moana Mackey 
: What concrete commitments has the Government made in the area of workplace learning and what progress is being made towards them? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: We are committed to 150000 trainees by 2005 and a quarter of a million by 2007. There has been a 10 percent increase in trainees from 30 June 2002 to 30 June 2003. We are committed to reaching 7500 Modern Apprenticeships by 2006 and currently have 5739 in training. We are committed to having the Gateway programme in all decile 1 to 5 schools. A further set of schools is being selected for next year. This will mean approximately 63 schools currently will be augmented by almost all decile 1 to 5 schools by the end of next year. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Noting that the single greatest concern of employers is the issue of basic literacy and numeracy skills can the Minister explain why his Government cancelled a nationwide system of national testing as a basic quality assurance measure in the compulsory sector to ensure that all school leavers left school able to read write and do mathematics? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: That question is better directed to the Minister of Education. But if he were here I am sure he would say that this Government has replaced that programme in order to ensure that young New Zealanders leave school literate and numerate so that they can move on to advance their careers or their learning as they choose. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: What is the Minister’s response to the adventure education industry’s claim that his restrictive fee maxima imposed on private training establishments will lead to the closure of 15 regional training centres and the loss of 200 full-time jobs in that industry alone; and how does such an outcome raise the skill levels of the New Zealand workforce? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: My response would be to point to the fact that the private training educators have access to $164 million worth of training opportunities and youth training money; $146 million rising to $150 million next year of what is currently called “EFTS” money; as well as money that comes through sources such as the Ministry of Social Development. So I do not think that will happen. 
David Benson-Pope 
: What is the particular importance of industry training for both employers and employees? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Industry training is a way of improving workplace performance productivity and teamwork. When workplaces are not committed to training there is a lack of leadership low productivity and poor performance and experienced workers are often reduced to the status of assistant orange boy. I think the illustration I have here in the House today is of course the National Party. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No that last comment will be withdrawn. I will not have that here today. I want the last comment withdrawn. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I withdraw. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: I seek leave to table the document in which the claim of loss of jobs in regional centres is made by Adventure Education. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Foreshore and Seabed—Crown Ownership 
2.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Was Hon John Tamihere correct when he said she would announce the Government’s plans for the seabed and foreshore next week and will they include plans for her Government to introduce legislation for exclusive Crown ownership? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Like Mr Tamihere I hope it will be possible to give a further indication of Government thinking next week although given the complexity of the issues I am not prepared to commit to a precise time for that. Legislation will be required to ensure that private exclusive title is not created over what has long been regarded as public domain. 
Hon Bill English 
: Given that the Prime Minister consistently repeats that private exclusive title will not be able to be granted will she achieve that by asserting what she claimed 6 weeks ago: that the beaches and the foreshore and their ownership lie with the Crown? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: As I recall some few weeks ago I said they had long been considered to lie with the Crown. It has been very difficult to find a piece of legislation that spells that out. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Will the legislation she proposes clarify what has been the understood status quo: that the foreshore and seabed lie with the Crown? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The proposed legislation which we will be consulting on will clarify that the public has rights of access and that Maori also have interests to be protected. We are endeavouring to reconcile two sets of rights. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Does she still consider that the ownership of the foreshore and seabed belongs with the Crown—yes or no? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: What I consider is irrelevant; it is a question of what the legal position is and the legal position on that is not clear. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We have a continuing problem. I asked a very specific question—what the Prime Minister considers a matter to be; yes or no—and she deflected it by saying it is not important what she considers. A lot of people may agree with that but I want an answer to my question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Prime Minister is not required to be put in a position where she just has to say “Yes” or “No”. There may be other options. After she made that comment she gave one of those other options. 
Metiria Turei 
: Why is it OK to override Maori customary title that does not restrict access to the coast while at the same time ignoring Pakeha private exclusive title that does restrict public access to the New Zealand beaches? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: As I said last week in answer to a similar question from the member the Minister of Agriculture and Minister for Rural Affairs has an access committee looking at precisely some of those issues. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Can the Prime Minister assure New Zealanders that at the end of the process she has embarked upon and the Government is involved in at present the traditional understanding of rights of access to and enjoyment of the foreshore and seabed by all New Zealanders will not have changed and that life will carry on pretty much as it was prior to the recent court ruling? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: That is certainly the direction we are heading in and I note that the member like myself noted that very helpful comments came from Mr Jones of the Maori Fisheries Commission this morning about the need for both sides to this issue the Crown and Maori to look for a win-win solution. 
Stephen Franks 
: If she wants to tell Maori they have a legitimate claim why would they settle for anything less than the full exclusive and undisturbed possession promised by the treaty or is so-called guardianship just a softening-up? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: This is not a treaty issue; it is a common-law issue. It is clear that in the law of New Zealand at the present time issues like customary rights and title are not clearly defined at all. That is why I agree entirely with the National Party spokesperson on Maori affairs that there is a need to sort it out. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why did the Prime Minister make her public statement 6 weeks ago giving the impression she would move to assert Crown ownership when she has told us today that her own views are irrelevant that there is no legislation to back up Crown ownership and that it is a common-law issue that needs to be sorted out; did she not know that 6 weeks ago? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: What I said some weeks ago is what most New Zealanders would have understood which is that those areas had long been considered to lie in the public domain. The Court of Appeal has set in train a process that could lead to them being put out of the public domain. That is what the Government on behalf of the public of New Zealand cannot tolerate. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why has the Prime Minister put in train a series of negotiations with her Maori members to the effect that one condition is that they would bargain the right to access for the Maori people for aquaculture rights as part of that deal? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: That is not the process that is in train. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: In the light of the Prime Minister’s answer to my earlier question can she give the House a view about reported statements that Auckland iwi groups are now preparing to lodge claims over the foreshore and seabed because they fear that those opportunities might be about to be removed from them? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: No doubt many iwi are studying the Court of Appeal decision. It is unfortunate that some people have jumped from a decision about where certain matters can be heard to an assumption that ownership automatically follows. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is the Prime Minister aware of the answer to a question provided yesterday by Margaret Wilson outlining 16 detailed claims that have been put in front of the Maori Land Court and what steps does the Government intend to take to prevent those claims proceeding far enough to frustrate the will of New Zealanders that ownership of the beach stays with the Crown for the use of everybody? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: As the member’s party’s own Maori affairs spokesperson has said the Maori Land Court is probably the appropriate place to look at issues like customary rights. But the Government will have more to say on how to proceed in future when it puts the proposals out for consultation. 
Stephen Franks 
: If this is simply a matter of common law and not a treaty issue why does not Parliament deal with it and change it—as it does in the interests of all New Zealanders almost every day? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am sure the member does not mean to imply in that question that the people of New Zealand and their various interests are never consulted. What we are on about here is nation building and getting win-win solutions—not polarisation as practised by Opposition parties. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Government parties do; Mr Dunne did. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have warned Mr Smith about interjecting from a more favourable position. That is his one warning for today. 
Lake Taupo—Water Quality 
3.  
MITA RIRINUI (NZ Labour—Waiariki) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: What is the Government doing to stop the deterioration of the water quality in Lake Taupo? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 The Minister for the Environment and the Minister of Agriculture are negotiating with local and regional government and Tuwharetoa to stem the deterioration of Lake Taupo’s water quality by managing land use and sewage disposal to reduce the amount of nitrogen entering the lake. 
Mita Ririnui 
: Why are there no short-term solutions to reverse the deterioration of the lake’s water quality? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: We are seeing the results of decades of nitrogen runoff. Lake clarity has been cut from 15 metres to 14 metres by what happened before 1963 so clarity will diminish further by what has happened in the last 40 years. Our work is now focused on how we reduce that nitrogen by 20 percent over the next 15 years. If we do not change what we do on the land then the problem will get worse. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why did the Minister give the Rotorua District Council a green ribbon environmental award for its report on recycled paper with organic ink and in a bicultural format when this year Lake Rotoiti has been in the worst state ever—bays closed for 6 months; the entire lake closed off—or are flash recycled reports more important than substance for this Minister for the Environment? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The original question was about Lake Taupo. If the Minister wants to comment briefly she may do so. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: I awarded the Rotorua District Council a Green Ribbon Award for its excellent state of the environment report which made effective use of graphics and plain language to communicate the district’s key environmental issues. Those did include the deteriorating water quality in Rotorua’s lakes which has been like the water in Lake Taupo deteriorating for many years and for which there is no overnight solution. The work has begun with Environment Bay of Plenty the local council and also central government working together—not as quickly as in the case of Lake Taupo because they did not come and ask 4 years ago as Environment Waikato did with Tuwharetoa for some help and a partnership in cleaning up Lake Taupo. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Returning to Lake Taupo what assistance in the form of research or any other kind of assistance will be available to landowners to change their land-use practices; does the Government envisage eventually some penalties if people refuse to cooperate? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: To deal with the latter part of the question first at the moment we are offering more carrots than penalties because I would have to say that whenever I fly over the farms on the western side of the lake I can see that the farmers have tried everything they can to mitigate nitrogen runoff. It is the quality of the soil that is causing the problem. So on that part research and investment in research by both central and local government is extremely important in order to find the options for farmers to continue farming in that area. 
Algerian Suspected Terrorist—Immigration Service 
4.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: Is she concerned that the “lie in unison” issue if left unchallenged may undermine confidence in the integrity of her and her department? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 No. However the issue is not being left unchallenged as an investigation is taking place led by the Secretary of Labour. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: How does the Minister intend to redeem any confidence in herself or the department of which she is in charge when in the last 3 days after hearing about the “lie in unison” memo we have heard the following lame statements by herself and her officials: the language used in the document was “highly regrettable”; “Normally if there is anything untoward they would let me know and I haven’t heard anything.”; or “I’ll have to get back to you. I’ve got no recollection of the thing. It sounds like some sort of flippant aside really.” and when all those statements are in relation to a suspected terrorist who was able to enter and stay in this country? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The person who entered this country was dealt with under legislation that took effect in October 1999. The law has been that way for some time. Those procedures have been dealt with appropriately. I have fully accepted that the comments that were included in the media log that was put together by the media adviser in the Immigration Service were not reflective of an agreement to lie because I would have had to be party to such an agreement and I was not. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Is it correct that she gave an address on 16 July in which she said: “I can assure you that the New Zealand Immigration Service reinforces with all staff the code of conduct that emphasises the highest levels of integrity”; can the Minister advise how an agreement to “lie in unison” and how destroying evidence or withholding it from the Ombudsman are consistent with that high level of integrity? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Yes I did say that. I do take those matters extremely seriously. I can say that the Secretary of Labour has taken over this inquiry and has established his own terms of reference for an investigation into all the allegations that have been made. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: When she said the language used in the document was “highly regrettable” why did she not pursue the true intent of Ian Smith’s words when he said: “I was let down badly. Everyone had agreed to lie in unison but all the others caved in and I was the only one left singing the original song.”; can she as Minister explain why she accepted a non-explanatory apology? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I accepted the apology from Ian Smith which was given to me over the telephone. What I should say though is that that very quote highlights the reality of the situation for me. I was the only person who spoke about the matter. It must refer to me and therefore I could be a party to such an agreement only if one existed. No such agreement existed. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Given that the Minister has just told the House that if there had been an agreement to lie then she would have had to be a party to it can she understand the absurdity of having an investigation that is conducted by a public servant who reports to her and who is dependent upon her recommendation for his bonus and ultimately for his job? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: That is not correct. The Secretary of Labour is accountable to the Minister of Labour in that regard. I have confidence in Dr Buwalda’s ability to deal properly with this matter—as the State Services Commissioner said in his letter to the Hon Murray McCully yesterday. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I ask the Minister this again and request that she give me an answer this time: why did she accept a non-explanatory apology from the spokesperson for the Immigration Service Ian Smith? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I have been offered a profuse apology by the individual concerned and I have accepted it. That is a personal matter. Questions of discipline and questions of investigation relating to the individual concerned will be dealt with by the department. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This Minister claimed in this House that she got an apology. I am asking her where the explanation was that went with the apology. It is a pretty clear question. I have now asked it twice and I am raising a point of order about it. I want to know why the apology was not accompanied by an explanation. That is pretty clear. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister did give a reason. She said that she had had an apology by phone—I think she said that it was a profuse apology by phone—that she accepted that apology but that that did not in any way interfere with the process of the inquiry. That answer certainly addressed the question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: It addresses the question of the apology but I am not asking about that. That is known to be a fact. I want to know where the explanation was that usually accompanies an apology—for example: “I was late because I missed the train.” That is pretty clear but she is saying that she got an apology and everything else will go to the inquiry. The Minister has it in her province and knowledge to tell us whether there was an explanation from Mr Smith. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is a debating matter. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I ask the Minister again: was there an explanation accompanying Ian Smith’s apology; if not why did she accept the apology and if there was what was the explanation? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: No there was no explanation accompanying the apology. He was profuse in his apology to me. It was offered in a personal way and accepted in a personal way. It has nothing to do with the investigation into the matters and there are others to whom he is accountable. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have asked three questions on this specific issue of whether there was an accompanying explanation. Now the Minister prefers to answer it— 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I said “No”. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: The Minister could have answered it the first time and told me there was no explanation with the apology. I ask why she will get away with that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister did address both the previous questions. She can answer in any way she wishes. I do not judge the merit of the answer. 
Prostitution Law Review Committee—Establishment 
5.  
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: What progress if any has been made in establishing the Prostitution Law Review Committee and when does he expect it will carry out its responsibility to “assess the number of persons working as sex workers in New Zealand”? 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Justice 
: The Minister has written to those Ministers who are required by the Act to nominate people for the Prostitution Law Review Committee to seek a meeting as a first step towards establishing the committee. The committee will carry out its responsibility to assess the number of persons working as sex workers in New Zealand as soon as practicable after it is established. To assist with this task the Ministry of Justice is currently doing some preliminary work in looking at how this research could be carried out. 
Larry Baldock 
: In the light of the comments by the Police Association president Greg O’Connor in today’s  
Dominion Post 
 
that gangs are now planning to move into prostitution more quickly than he first thought will the Minister also establish a full inquiry into the involvement of organised crime in prostitution at the present time so that the effects of the new Act in that regard are able to be measured? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I will certainly ask the Minister of Justice to take up the matter that has been alluded to in the newspaper but it would be premature to initiate an inquiry if there has been no established problem at this stage. 
Martin Gallagher 
: Could the Minister remind the Parliament of the membership that this Parliament decided the Prostitution Law Review Committee should have? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: Parliament decided that the Prostitution Law Review Committee should comprise 11 members to be appointed by the Minister of Justice. The members are to be nominated by the Minister of Justice Minister of Police Minister of Health Minister of Commerce Minister of Women’s Affairs Minister of Youth Affairs and Minister of Local Government and by the New Zealand Prostitutes Collective. Nominations will be sought following my meeting with Ministers shortly. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Now that prostitution has been decriminalised and the review committee has been set up will it be easier to not only assess the number of persons who are working as sex workers in New Zealand but also to assist them to leave the profession if they so choose? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: Having looked at the terms of reference for the committee I do not see that it is the committee’s responsibility to assist workers to leave the profession. It certainly should be easier to identify how many people are working in the profession. 
Larry Baldock 
: Does the Minister accept that the Prostitution Law Review Committee faces a credibility problem when all the nominations for appointment to it are made by Ministers who voted for the legislation and who would therefore have a potential interest in ensuring that the committee’s final report reflected favourably on the law change; if so will he allow other parties in the House to make recommendations on appointments to ensure that the review committee is balanced in its assessments? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: If that member wishes to communicate his views on the matter to the Minister of Justice I am sure the Minister would listen to any recommendations he might make. 
Larry Baldock 
: Noting that we do not currently have accurate assessments on the sex industry in New Zealand does the Minister accept that the information on prostitution supplied to the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women by the Government last October—namely that “the incidence of trafficking of women appears to have diminished in recent years”—was potentially misleading in the absence of an accurate profile of the sex industry? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I would not like to comment on that particular assertion without any thorough analysis. 
Algerian Suspected Terrorist—Inquiry 
6.  
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (NZ National—East Coast Bays) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: Will she support a State Services Commission inquiry or a commission of inquiry into allegations that officials of the New Zealand Immigration Service agreed to “lie in unison” and that they withheld documents being sought by the Ombudsman under the Official Information Act 1982 in relation to the Zaoui case; if not why not? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I do not consider it is necessary to determine whether there should be any form of inquiry before the Secretary of Labour has reported on the results of his investigations. I note that the State Services Commissioner has been kept fully informed and the Secretary of Labour has said publicly that his findings will be made public. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Given that these events involve the Minister and that they commenced in her own office what confidence can the public have in an in-house inquiry conducted by someone who reports to her and to her Cabinet colleagues and who depends upon her and her Cabinet colleagues both for his bonus and for reappointment to his job? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: As the State Services Commissioner said in a letter to the Hon Murray McCully yesterday there is no risk or perception of conflict of interest for him personally as these events pre-date his appointment as chief executive. I am not ruling out any further inquiries beyond these investigations but I would like the investigations to be completed and for that report to be publicly released. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Is the Minister seriously asking the House to believe that she expects the Secretary of Labour to independently and authoritatively investigate an affair to which she herself says she is a party if there has been some wrongdoing and to report that independently and authoritatively to Cabinet? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Yes I have full confidence in the Secretary of Labour to conduct an investigation to make a report and to release it publicly. I do not believe that people should pre-judge the outcome of that investigation. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Does the Minister understand that if she is going to insist that this should be the only investigation to take place at this stage into a matter that she has told the House today she is a party to—and must therefore be a party to any wrongdoing that has been done—it is going to be seen by the public to be nothing more than a cover-up unless she allows a party that is independent and authoritative to carry it out? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Only one person is asserting that it would be a cover-up. A brand-new Secretary of Labour has offered to expand the investigation beyond the matters that I asked the general manager of the Immigration Service to look at. Some serious issues have been raised and I want to see answers to them. There are questions about whether information the Ombudsman requested was released. It is clear that that member had the information before an application was made to the Ombudsman for the review of a decision and how he came upon that information might be of use to the investigation. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does the Minister not understand that the Immigration Service is part of the Department of Labour the chief executive of which is now to conduct an in-house inquiry; that the suggested lying and deceit was widespread from Mr Ian Smith’s comments; and why will she not therefore give us an inquiry with terms of reference that the public can have confidence in not a whitewash in-house job that she has put up? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I just want to refer the House to the media release that came out from the chief executive of the Department of Labour yesterday. He stated very clearly he was concerned that the allegations as reported if left unchallenged could undermine confidence in the integrity of his department and the wider public service. He wants to ensure that the matter is dealt with openly and promptly to remove any public doubt about what happened and deal with any outstanding issues. The matter will be made public the results of the investigation will be made public and I have not ruled out any additional inquiries after that report has been released. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Does the Minister understand that an allegation that there has been an agreement to “lie in unison” is at the absolute outer end of the range of serious misconduct for public servants; and since she has told the House today that if there has been such misconduct she must have been a party to it does she not accept that any inquiry that will have credibility with the public must take place on the part of someone who does not report to her directly or to her Cabinet colleagues? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I do not want to predetermine the outcome of an investigation nor do I want us to have a situation where I am in fact predetermining whether there will be an inquiry following the results of the investigation. There may well have to be an inquiry as a result of the matters of the investigation. I have an open mind but I do not want that member to get away with trying to reinterpret what I said in the House today to make it sound as if I have been party to something that I have not been party to. The point I have made absolutely clear to this House—which I will make more than once and will make anywhere in this country and stand by it—is the point made in the commentary in the media log that said others had broken this so-called agreement. I was the only person who spoke on the matter from any Government agency. I was not a party to any agreement; there was no agreement to lie. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to table important legislation that states that it is an offence to wilfully make any false statement or to mislead or attempt to mislead an ombudsman or any other person in the exercise of his or her powers under that Act namely the Ombudsmen Act. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Television New Zealand—Dividend 
7.  
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Broadcasting 
: Is the Government seeking a dividend from Television New Zealand Ltd this year and will it waive any requirement for a dividend to help Television New Zealand Ltd to fulfil its charter obligations for comprehensive impartial and in-depth news and current affairs? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Broadcasting) 
: 
 The Government expects some dividend from Television New Zealand this year. The board of Television New Zealand is currently considering its dividend policy and the likely level of dividend to be paid in the course of finalising its statement of intent for the 3 financial years beginning 1 July 2003. This will also cover how it intends to fulfil its charter obligations. I have not been advised of the board’s decision regarding this matter as yet. 
Sue Kedgley 
: How can Television New Zealand possibly deliver on its charter obligation to provide comprehensive and in-depth coverage of news and current affairs when it has just axed its flagship investigative programme  
Assignment 
 is sacking an estimated 14 current affairs staff and is cutting up to 10 percent of its news and current affairs budget; and is that the sort of quality programming the Minister expected when he introduced the charter? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Of course the issues raised by the member are issues for management and it has made that very clear. But what is also clear is that there is a charter and the organisation will be held accountable for its implementation. 
Mark Peck 
: How much funding is the Government providing to assist with the implementation of the charter and what are the accountability arrangements? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: We provided $12 million last year and $15 million this year increasing to $17 million by 2005-06—a total of $60 million over 4 years. The charter funding is monitored through a memorandum of understanding between TVNZ and the Minister. The expenditure is reported to the Minister on a quarterly basis and is also required to be reported in the company’s annual report. 
Katherine Rich 
: After 4 years why has the Government failed to implement Labour’s 1999 broadcasting policy which stated: “Labour believes priority for Television New Zealand should be on providing a quality service rather than providing a dividend to Government.” and “Labour will work towards allowing TVNZ to retain a greater proportion of potential dividends.”? After 4 years is this not a snail’s pace? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: It cannot be at a snail’s pace; it has all happened. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Can the Minister confirm that there is no pressure on TVNZ coming from the Government or the Broadcasting Commission board to make budget cuts to return a dividend; if so does he have any idea why management is seeking to make an extraordinary 10 percent cut in the current affairs and news budget at the very time when it is expecting to receive record advertising income topping $300 million and when it has just received a $12 million grant from the Government? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Yes I can reassure the House that there has been absolutely no political involvement in terms of decisions made here. They are as the organisation itself has said strictly management decisions. The member will know that television organisations go through phases where they change their programming. In this case TVNZ is looking at its news and current affairs. Yes it is doing extraordinarily well right now from its advertising revenue but I point out that not one dollar that goes to the organisation for its charter obligations goes into news and current affairs. In fact the agreement is that it should not and will not. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Can the Minister assure the House that the budget cuts that management is seeking to make in TVNZ are not driven in any way by the need to pay an estimated $20 million tax liability for TVNZ as a result of the Government’s decision to split off the transmission subsidiary BCL from TVNZ; if not why not? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Yes I can give the member that absolute assurance. 
Business Growth Fund—Grants 
8.  
RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) 
 to the  
Minister for Economic Development 
: On what date did Industry New Zealand learn which suppliers were to receive the $75000 Business Growth fund grant paid to The Warehouse last year and what checks were done of these suppliers against the Business Growth fund criteria? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister has advised me that his answer will be a little longer than usual. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 A list of 15 companies was originally proposed when Industry New Zealand approved a grant to suppliers of The Warehouse to become more efficient and therefore better suppliers through an Enviro-Mark certification which is an environmental qualification administered by Landcare Research New Zealand. Industry New Zealand widened the group of companies to be considered to ensure that the most appropriate companies were funded following the initial grant approval. Three agencies were involved in the selection process—Landcare Research New Zealand The Warehouse Ltd and Industry New Zealand. The final group of 10 companies was confirmed on 3 April 2003. 
Before the group of 10 companies was confirmed Industry New Zealand assessed whether they met the Business Growth fund criteria. As a group the companies met the eligibility criteria as Industry New Zealand interpreted them. A subsequent Auditor-General’s office opinion is that Industry New Zealand’s original interpretation was inconsistent with the criteria agreed by Cabinet. New Zealand Trade and Enterprise advises that it has improved its processes to address all issues of concern raised by the Auditor-General. The Auditor-General’s office stated in its report to Trade and Enterprise New Zealand: “It is satisfied that New Zealand Trade and Enterprise has responded appropriately and in a proactive manner to the issues raised by the Auditor-General’s review.” 
Rodney Hide 
: In the light of the Minister’s answer that the list was not finalised until this year how could he as Minister assure the House on 7 November that the suppliers “all met the business growth criteria” when the final list of suppliers had not been finalised and who is responsible for this grant being falsely awarded as the Auditor-General has now shown? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: The policy requirements that Industry New Zealand then followed were set by Cabinet of course. However the operational decisions as the member undoubtedly knows are carried out by the staff and board of Industry New Zealand. In this case the board and the management determined that in principle this application was acceptable for this Business Grant award but in practice they needed to be sure that each of the companies qualified. In their view there was flexibility for them to make that decision. The Auditor-General has indicated that there was not and therefore the processes have been changed. I point out to the member that when one is proactive in assisting the business community of New Zealand to develop there will be flexibility and risks will be taken. This Government is prepared to help business in New Zealand rather than criticise it like the ACT party. 
Hon Matt Robson 
: Is the Minister concerned by this issue being raised? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: No I welcome the question from the Opposition. All public funding should of course be accountable to this Parliament. However this coalition remains committed to New Zealand’s economic development and is prepared to try new ways of working with New Zealand business people even if it entails some element of risk. The question from the ACT party again highlights the commitment of this coalition to create jobs stronger regional and local communities and sustainable business development. I wish the Opposition would wake up and smell the coffee about some of that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The answer to the first question was long. That answer was just a little too long and we had better not have any more of that length. 
John Key 
: Has The Warehouse now repaid the $21090.42 that has already been paid out of the $75000 grant and who is repaying the money—The Warehouse or its suppliers? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: The Warehouse has been invoiced for the money and I am quite sure its cash flow will be appropriately large enough to qualify it to pay. The Warehouse has paid the money; it is so committed to this environmental act that it is prepared to fund the companies even though perfectly reasonably entitled to apply for the grant on behalf of the supplier companies. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: How many grants were made by Industry New Zealand? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is rather wide of the original question but the Minister can comment briefly. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Very briefly up to the end of June this year there have been 340 Business Growth grants 850 Enterprise Awards grants and a number of other local and regional grants. This is one of them and I am proud of every single one that has helped the industries in regions of New Zealand develop in the way they have over the last 3 to 4 years. 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: Is the Enviro-Mark certification which the funding was for still proceeding in the absence of the grant and does the Minister stand by his claim in question for written answer No. 12296 lodged in 2002 that savings to the 12 supplier companies of approximately $350000 per annum are expected and why did he ever think that a project returning 233 percent a year needed taxpayer help? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Yes and yes and because I stand for the development of New Zealand which the ACT party has never stood for. 
Rod Donald 
: Has the Ministry of Economic Development investigated how many manufacturing jobs The Warehouse has destroyed because it imports hundreds of millions of dollars of products from sweatshop economies that used to be made in New Zealand by New Zealand manufacturers and New Zealand workers and what is the Government doing to promote public loyalty to New Zealand businesses so that jobs can be saved indeed created in our economy so that our massive trade deficit—$2.8 billion for the year to June—can be reduced? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I have responsibility for New Zealand economic development not for the rest of the world—[ 
Interruption 
] My colleagues are telling me that that will come soon! The reality is of course the Ministry of Economic Development has not carried that out but it has not carried out a study either of how a lot of ordinary New Zealand families have benefited from low prices of commodities and products that they buy from The Warehouse. But the overall growth of New Zealand seems to be in good heart to me. We have the lowest unemployment levels in living memory and the country is doing better than most of its trading partners. We must be doing something right on this side of the House to have achieved those record developments. 
Deborah Coddington 
: Who or what were the two suppliers that the Auditor-General found did not meet the Business Growth fund criteria and what is their annual turnover? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I do not have the names of the two companies. If the member wants to have them I will ask Industry New Zealand whether there is any confidentiality about their names. 
Rodney Hide 
: When Industry New Zealand senior adviser Mr Richard White the Minister himself and the Industry New Zealand Chief Executive Officer Mr Neil McKay told in turn the  
New Zealand Herald  
Parliament and the Commerce Committee that “the suppliers all met the funding criteria” were they making flippant comments or were they lying in unison? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I resent the implication that any of those people including myself was lying to anyone. The reality is that Industry New Zealand at the time thought that if collectively the group of companies met the criteria that would be sufficient for the award. There were in fact two companies out of the 10 that did not and that in the view of the Auditor-General has eliminated qualification for the award. I think it was an honest and reasonable mistake for Industry New Zealand to make at the time. The processes have been changed because of the Auditor-General’s report. Again members should understand that when a country is moving towards a proactive stance in terms of industry and business development we are entitled to try some new things and this is one of them—and most of them are working. 
Rodney Hide 
: I seek leave of the House to table the Auditor-General’s report showing that the Business Growth fund was out of order. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Endangered Species—Conservation 
9.  
GEORGINA BEYER (NZ Labour—Wairarapa) 
 to the  
Minister of Conservation 
: Have there been any significant developments in threatened species conservation? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 Yes. A good example is the recovery of kokako to a point where new populations are being established. Last week five kokako were released into Wairarapa’s Mount Bruce forest. They had been transferred from a thriving King Country population where numbers had been boosted by successful pest control. 
Georgina Beyer 
: What is being done to avoid further losses of kiwi at Okarito Forest? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Okarito Forest is being managed as a kiwi sanctuary. My department has developed a strategy to ensure that the brown kiwi population there will increase this year. Sufficient eggs will be taken from the wild and hatched and the birds will be held in predator-safe environments until they can be returned as juveniles that are large enough to fight off predators. 
Metiria Turei 
: What are the main threats to kokako outside these highly protected areas and what prospect does he see of restoring the dawn chorus to much larger areas of the conservation estate and to private land? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Stoats remain the main problem attacking kokako. We are continuing to try to eradicate this pest as best we can. 
Agricultural Sector—Confidence 
10.  
Hon DAVID CARTER (NZ National) 
 to the  
Minister of Agriculture 
: Given that key factors dampening confidence in the agricultural sector this year including the exchange rate drought and Sars have all developed favourably over the last month does he accept that the Government’s proposed livestock greenhouse gas emissions research levy is responsible for the deterioration in farmer confidence as reported in the latest National Bank Business Outlook Survey? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Acting Minister of Agriculture) 
: No. Over the last few months recorded confidence in the agricultural sector has continued to fluctuate around very low levels due principally to exchange rate and commodity price factors. The July figure was worse than those of June and April but better than those of May and March. Of course we have to take account of the fact that they are relatively small samples and some of the variation may simply be sampling error. 
Hon David Carter 
: Is the Minister of Agriculture aware of the statement made in the House on 23 April 1981 by the current Minister of Finance Dr Cullen when he said: “I am proud of the fact that my secondary education was not paid for by the taxpayers of New Zealand but by the farmers of Canterbury and Hawke’s Bay. I ripped them off for 5 years then and I shall get stuck into them again in the next few years”; and is the Minister of Agriculture also keen to get stuck into New Zealand farmers whom he now calls “whingers”? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes the Minister of Agriculture is aware of that comment which has been rather frequently quoted over the last 22 years. I think that particular comment shows that greenhouse gas emissions are not confined to sheep and cattle. 
Janet Mackey 
: What does the National Bank business confidence survey say about profit expectations for the agricultural sector? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: While expectations are still for a fall in profits the figures improved from May through to June and through to July so there are some signs in the survey of recovery in that sector. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Why does the Government through its Ministers feel it necessary to denigrate farmers? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Government does not feel it necessary to denigrate farmers. The Government takes the view that a research levy of $8 million on a multibillion dollar industry is not an unfair contribution to solving more than 50 percent of New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions. 
Hon David Carter 
: Given the Minister’s response to Mr Woolerton will the Minister of Agriculture therefore attend the Federated Farmers meeting in his electorate in Timaru tomorrow; if not will any of his 51 parliamentary colleagues deputise for him? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I do not have the information to answer that. I do not think the Minister is able to attend the meeting in Timaru tomorrow. I do not know of any other member going to Timaru although the Minister of Finance is going to Timaru and Oamaru in the near future. 
Fines—Debt Collection 
11.  
LYNNE PILLAY (NZ Labour—Waitakere) 
 to the  
Minister for Courts 
: What progress has been made in reducing the level of overdue fines and reparations? 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 Initiatives by this Government have led to a reduction in the level of overdue unpaid fines from $334 million as of June 2002 to $306 million as of June 2003. This is the first year that the total of overdue unpaid fines has gone down and the best year ever in terms of the amount collected. During that period the value of unpaid reparations has also reduced dramatically from $30.6 million as of June 2002 to $22 million as of 30 June. That is a reduction of $8.9 million or a 28 percent reduction. That reflects this Government’s commitment to helping the victims of crime. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Why is the total for overdue fines reported in the 2002 annual report of the Department for Courts different from the figure of $334 million that the Minister has just quoted? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: In the department’s 2002 annual report the total overdue fines figure was a subset of the total unpaid fines figure and was shown at $288 million. That figure was an error because of a mismatch of data in the conversion from the Wanganui computer to the new collection system. The new system provides much more robust figures and the correct figure for overdue fines for 2001-02 is $334 million. 
Murray Smith 
: How much is outstanding in overdue reparation arising from agreements reached at family group conferences and what is the Government doing to address the recovery of those amounts? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I cannot give the member an off-the-cuff figure immediately but I will get it for him. However I can assure him that everything is being done to collect reparations. It is a priority of this Government. 
Ron Mark 
: Has the Minister seen reports that in the Whangarei court a judge ordered the writing-off of $10000 worth of fines for an individual who had 40 convictions that in Hastings a judge ordered the write-off of $18000 worth of fines for a man who had 62 traffic infringements and that a 19-year-old had $54000 worth of fines remitted; if he has has he expressed concern to the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Police about their undermining as is happening the credibility of fines as a sentencing option and public regard for the administration of justice and respect for the law—taken out of his book—a principle that the Minister’s ministry is committed to protecting? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: It would be wrong of me to comment on the individual judges’ decisions in those cases. Bu I can assure the member that the Department for Courts and this Government take this issue very seriously and we are putting in a tremendous amount of extra resource to ensure that fines are paid promptly and on time. We are giving as many avenues as possible for individuals to pay their fines promptly. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There are two parts to my question. One is whether the Minister has seen reports. The second part of my question is what representations he has made to the Minister of Police and the Minister of Justice. Although I appreciate having greater knowledge of what he is doing he did not address those two very specific points at all. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister did I thought. 
Murray Smith 
: Given that the Government does not know how much is outstanding from family group conference reparation agreements will the Minister admit that the progress in reducing the level of overdue reparations just trumpeted by him is a totally hollow boast? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: Certainly not! This is the first time that outstanding reparations owed to victims of crime have gone down and gone down by $8 million. I would have thought that that member would say: “Congratulations! Well done! Good job!”. 
Cochlear Implant Surgery—Waiting Times 
12.  
Dr LYNDA SCOTT (NZ National—Kaikoura) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Why are New Zealand patients waiting up to 3 years for cochlear implant surgery to correct profound deafness even after it is medically approved; and how does this fit with the Government’s strategy that all patients should receive surgery within 6 months? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Acting Minister of Health) 
: 
 First we have never said that all patients should receive surgery within 6 months. At the very minimum they would have to be assessed as needing it. With regard to the cochlear implant situation there is growing demand for cochlear implants and a prioritisation system is used to establish access to those services. Children tend to benefit most from cochlear implants and treatment for them invariably does occur within those 6 months. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: Why are so few cochlear implants publicly funded in New Zealand with only 25 last year when this intervention has been shown to be the third most cost-effective high-tech intervention in medicine letting children develop normal language keeping adults in work and keeping older people independent in the community although nobody over 65 is funded for it; and is this just another example of New Zealanders falling far behind the better access that Australians have to health care? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I do agree that there are considerable benefits from cochlear implants for some people. That is one of the reasons that we instigated a review of the cochlear implant programme. That review will be completed by September this year. It will look at future provision of a quality service and that provision will include the waiting times for both children and adults. 
Nanaia Mahuta 
: In the meantime can the Minister explain what the Government will do to improve cochlear implant services? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I am delighted that this weekend I am opening the South Island cochlear implant programme at the Van Asch Deaf Education Centre in Christchurch. Our Government has put $900000 of funding into setting up and running the programme so that people from the South Island requiring cochlear implant services no longer need to travel to Auckland. 
Heather Roy 
: Can the Minister confirm that district health boards are now paying in total around $120 million a year just in interest on the capital injections they are having to spend on health services like cochlear implant surgery and how is this strategy of borrowing to fund operations sustainable? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: No I am not able to confirm those specific figures. 
Railways Bill 
First Reading 
Debate resumed from 29 July. 
JOHN KEY (NZ National—Helensville) 
: 
 National will be supporting the Railways Bill when it goes to the select committee but can I assure the Government that we will be going over it with a fine toothcomb. We do not have any confidence at all that this Government will have done any work when it comes to railways. I say so because in my hand I have a letter from the Hon. Dr Michael Cullen Minister of Finance when I asked him if he could detail for me whom he met regarding Tranz Rail on 11 March 26 March 16 April and what they had talked about when it came to the rail rescue package part of which will be included in the Railways Bill. To my surprise he did not have any record of that at all. When I went to the Ombudsman and asked him if he could intervene on my behalf Dr Cullen came back to tell me that they took no notes at the meeting they did not know the financial position of Tranz Rail at the time and they could not even remember who was at the meeting. It was a complete and utter shambles. 
One needs only to look at the debacle that has led to this Railways Bill and Track Co as a rail participant. Not only did the Minister first try to hug Tranz Rail a company that had anything other than a stellar record but when Toll Holdings came on the scene he greeted them with comments like: “They are on a collision course with the Government. Any offer would have to be a damn good one to interest me.” He was not prepared to step aside and be in a weak position if Toll Holdings took over Tranz Rail. Then he said: “I have some considerable suspicions about what their intentions are. Are they really after increasing rail or getting a trucking company?” Then he gave them a deal that was $200 million better than the deal he gave the company he originally told us was a good one. It only gets better because next week Genesee and Wyoming and West Farmers are coming over to put their bid on the table. So my advice to them is to abuse the Minister of Finance and they will get an even better deal than Toll Holdings. 
We will be recommending the Railways Bill when it goes to the select committee but we will be keeping a very close eye on it when it is in that committee. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (NZ Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I listened with great interest to the previous speaker. Was that member out of this country when that Government sold Tranz Rail? For him to have the gall and the temerity— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That has nothing to do with the question that this bill be read a first time. Will the member please come to that question. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know that there was a problem with the sound system—I was listening on the radio last night. There seems to be a problem now with a lot of distortion of the member’s speech through the microphones. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I think the member was just speaking far too closely and far too loudly. There was no problem with business last night. I have now discovered that the problem was that the microphone to my left was left on by mistake. I have ensured that will never happen again. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER 
: I thank the member for his assistance but I say that notwithstanding—and I respect absolutely the Speaker’s ruling—I think it is pertinent in the context of this bill to reflect on some of the history surrounding the rail system and what I believe was the absolute tragedy of the sale of our rail company. 
In terms of the first reading of this bill I just want to take the opportunity to warmly congratulate the Minister and the Government on the introduction of this very important legislation. It recognises the critical strategic importance of this country’s rail network. It is my considered view that the previous Government seemed very much unaware of that fact. I believe that this particular bill is an important step in recognising just how important the maintenance of the rail infrastructure is to the economy and the social well-being of our nation. 
I want perhaps to take the opportunity just to restate—for those who are listening to this very important discussion in Parliament—the point and the purpose of this legislation. The fundamental aim of the legislation is to improve the safety regime for all people involved with the operation of the rail network in this country. It is implementing the recommendations of Margaret Wilson’s ministerial inquiry into Tranz Rail which was reported on in late 2000. It also addresses serious gaps in the current safety framework that have arisen because of recent changes in the rail industry. 
I am not a member of the executive—I speak as the member for Hamilton West—but I want to place on record how distressed I am on behalf of my constituents at what has happened to rail in this country over the past few years. I believe that what has happened is nothing short of an absolute and utter tragedy. Tranz Rail as we are aware has contracted out its maintenance. It has sold its long distance passenger service Tranz Scenic. It has sold the Auckland rail corridor to the Crown and who knows it may yet sell the Tranz Metro service. 
However the current law appears to assume that there is one major rail operator only which will now no longer be the case. The bill seeks to fundamentally improve safety so that rail passengers workers and freight will not come to harm. If one compares rail with other modes of transport particularly road transport one finds that travelling by rail is pretty safe but there is always room for very significant improvement. 
I stress that I am enthusiastic about this bill. I think it is a very good bill and a really good step forward. It is great to work with people like Paul Swain and Judith Tizard and their team who are absolutely dedicated to the rebuilding of this nation’s infrastructure. I also acknowledge the work that Jim Anderton does. Jim Anderton will emphasise just how critical a good safe efficient effective rail network is to regional development around our country and I pay personal tribute to his strong advocacy over the years for the rail network. 
As I mentioned the bill is focused on safety issues. It is owner-neutral and is not related to any proposed sale of the Tranz Rail system. The Government originally planned to introduce the legislation early this year but delayed it somewhat while it worked through issues related to a number of small heritage operators. It is the Government’s view that they will not be disadvantaged by the bill because they generally have a very good safety record and that requires less intervention. The bill is flexible enough to ensure that safety requirements are tailored to suit the scale of individual operations and those heritage rail operators will be further consulted over fees and charges under the provisions of the bill. 
In the spirit of parliamentary magnanimity I acknowledge the support of the Green Party and that this bill is extending rail safety legislation to cover a wider number of industry players. It ensures a clear chain of accountability for safety and consolidates—which is a very important factor—all rail safety legislation into the one Act. That is a very important part of the work that I believe we must do as a country and as a society in order to rebuild our rail infrastructure in New Zealand. This bill also introduces a new regime for licensing documentation assessments audits enforcements and costs. 
This bill is very important for my region because in my electorate is one of the major rail junctions in New Zealand Frankton Junction. I am one of the many Kiwis who grew up to the regular sound of—and this proves my age—steam and diesel trains by day and night as when I was a kid I lived a mile or two only from the major railway junction in Hamilton. As a member for the Waikato region I acknowledge the critically important role that the Frankton railway junction has played in the economic and transport infrastructure of the Waikato area. 
The bill will be introducing a new regime of licensing. In fact all existing rail operators will have to relicense as will those that provide access to the track. Everyone who is part of the rail sector must be covered by a safety case provided by either an operator or an access provider. Documentation is very important. Enforcement of the safety criteria is also very important and I acknowledge the work that the regulator the Land Transport Safety Authority will play in that. 
Finally I welcome the introduction of this bill and its referral to a select committee. I believe that it is a very important step on what I believe is the long road back to recreating a safe efficient and effective rail transport infrastructure in this country. I wish the committee’s members well in their consideration of this important bill. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I would like to continue the theme developed by that member. We all have a nostalgic affection for rail travel steam engines and such things but we have to face the reality that more people in New Zealand want to use their cars than go by rail. It is always very interesting to me that the very people who advocate the saving of the rail for the sake of our social well-being and the building of our infrastructure are often those who do not even use rail but who want to force everybody else on to it. 
The explanatory note of this bill states in the general policy statement section that it was introduced because the rail system was going from “a vertically integrated industry with 1 major operator to an industry with a number of separate operators”. I wonder given the way that things are going now whether that will continue to be the case. We did go from having one major operator and those of us who had to travel by train in those days can remember it as being an appalling way to travel around New Zealand. When the Government owned the railways it was an appalling waste of taxpayers’ money. In the last year that State-owned rail was in operation in 1979-80 it lost $90 million. That was $90 million of taxpayers’ money. At the moment taxpayers have the option of investing their own money in rail if they want to. They can go and buy shares; there is absolutely nothing to stop them from buying shares in Tranz Rail. So why does the Government want to force them by taking the money off them to go and buy into rail? 
This legislation has been brought in as being very rail-specific safety legislation. We heard from the Hon Jim Anderton the other day the gruelling tale of Morgan Jones and no one would argue against that. It is very difficult to argue against safety measures. Who wants to take the unpopular line and argue against safety measures? But sometimes legislation has to be looked at with an analytical eye. That is what we have done with regard to this legislation and that is why we will not be supporting it going to the select committee. It is far too prescriptive and there is far too much detail in it. 
When we have very industry-specific legislation like this which comes in on top of the Health and Safety in Employment Amendment Act which we just brought into law in May we have two major effects. One effect is that blame and responsibility are sheeted home to the Minister. So in this bill the Minister of Transport is to be held directly responsible when accidents happen. If we bring in this very specific safety legislation so that accidents will not happen when an accident does happen people will ask why the Minister could not have prevented it. That is just one issue that needs to be looked at. I think that ACT is the only party that will be voting against this bill so it will go to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. I am on that committee so at least I will have the chance to look at the bill clause by clause and to try to reduce some of those overly prescriptive provisions. 
The other effect that we have to look at is—[ 
Interruption 
] If those members listened to what I was saying instead of gossiping to each other they would not have to interject. There is a lot of myth about the safety of rail since privatisation especially in the UK. A report that came out today from the UK states that the Rail Regulator Tom Winsor has reported that Network Rail’s costs have “exploded out of control with the result that upgrading of the network will have to be delayed.” Why is that? One of the key reasons for the loss of control of costs has been the replacement of rail track—no accountability to shareholders by a not-for-profit organisation. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: Ha ha! 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: The member laughs. Of course he would not understand that shareholders like to have a return on their investments. 
A new report in the UK for the Rail Safety and Standards Board has shown that there have been fewer deaths on the railways since privatisation. I will repeat that: there have been fewer deaths on the railways in the UK since privatisation. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: There are no trains running. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: I was in the UK just recently. I used trains all the time; they run very frequently. I can assure that member that the trains run all the time but they are very expensive. The new train warning system that they are trying to bring in in the UK—and this is the very point I bring members back to in this bill and which I want to get to—will cost £10 million for every life saved compared with traffic-calming measures that would cost only £100000 for every life saved. Do members see the point that I am trying to make? 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: No. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: I will repeat it for that member’s benefit. I will say this very slowly. There are costs and benefits that have to be weighed up. 
Nobody wants to have an unsafe rail track or unsafe roads. But when there are limited resources to spend on issues like that the costs and benefits have to be weighed up and one must look at the cost. For instance in New Zealand if we put in as this bill seems to suggest we will warnings at every single rail crossing—that is where the track goes through farms and private land—what will that cost compared with spending the money on improving a curve in a road for instance to make that road more safe? [ 
Interruption 
] That is an interesting point; the member says that the railways carry the freight. I wonder if the Government does pursue its obsession with renationalising business in New Zealand how it will protect freight on the rail network. Will we go back to the 40-mile limit? I can remember as a little girl helping my father to load wool bales on to the back of a truck in the middle of the night so that he could drive around the back way to the port at Napier because by law he had to take that load to the Waipukurau railhead. That was the result of the 40-mile limit; I am old enough to remember that. Will we revisit those days so that the Government can protect freight on the rail network? Those are the points I am trying to make. 
As I said ACT will be voting against this bill which has been pushed by the unions. It is on top of the Land Transport Management Bill which is already going to strangle transport in this country. An economic survey has recently shown that one of the biggest costs to economic development in this country is the strangulation of transport. What do we have now? We have a Land Transport Management Bill that is being pushed by the Greens. Another member thanked the Greens for that bill. We have a taxpayer member of the Green Party an unidentified staffer who is out there lobbying for support for that bill. Those people have very little understanding of the costs of rail safety. So this Government will be legislating for itself and will itself be caught by this legislation. It will be hoist by its own petard. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Railways Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 109 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 8 
ACT New Zealand 8. 
Bill read a first time and referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. 
Crown Minerals Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Energy) 
: 
 I move  
That the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. I would like to thank the Commerce Committee for its detailed consideration of the bill and also all those people who made submissions to and appeared before the select committee. The bill has raised difficult issues and the committee’s careful consideration has resulted in a number of improvements to the bill as introduced. I will look at them in some detail. 
Clauses 22 to 24 of the bill remove the right to apply for a new mining licence and to vary the term of a mining licence under the now-repealed Mining Act and Coal Mines Act. Licence holders will not be entitled to compensation for the loss of those rights. The Government believes that those amendments are needed to ensure that the repealed legislation is not perpetuated and that mining licence holders who want to continue to mine after their mining licences expire move to the new regime under the Crown Minerals Act as was always intended. In 2000 the High Court held in  
Glenharrow Holdings Ltd 
 v  
Attorney-General 
 that the right of mining licence holders to apply for a new mining licence had not been extinguished. There were plenty of proceedings that followed. There were more in the High Court and further proceedings in the Court of Appeal which has now confirmed what the Government has consistently maintained—that the Minister has neither the power to grant a new licence nor to consider an application to vary the terms of a licence. 
Glenharrow Holdings Ltd has been granted conditional leave to appeal to the Privy Council. In response to issues raised at the select committee on 19 September 2002 I announced that the Government intended to propose amendments to the bill so that the removal of the right to apply for a new licence would take effect as from 5 p.m. on 19 September 2002. After careful consideration the select committee has agreed to make those recommended changes. Special provisions have also been added to ensure that the court’s final judgment in the ongoing Glenharrow Holdings proceedings is protected and that the decisions in that litigation are applied to any applications received prior to 5 p.m. on 19 September 2002 including applications by Glenharrow Holdings. 
As Minister I am well aware that the minerals industry makes a significant contribution to New Zealand and especially to certain regional economies. I am also aware that aspects of the bill have been contentious particularly with the holders of current mining licences. However it is important to note that the bill does not extinguish current mining licences. All current mining licences will continue in force until they expire. The bill will not deny mining licence holders continuing opportunities to mine Crown-owned minerals. Mining licence holders will still be able to apply for a mining permit under the Crown Minerals Act. 
Clause 5 of the bill also clarifies what the requirements are when the holder of an exploration permit wants to extend its duration. An exploration permit that had been initially granted for a term of up to 5 years will be able to be extended for a further 5 years subject to certain requirements including the requirement to give up at least half the original permit area. That “use it or lose it” requirement has been part of the regime in New Zealand for over 20 years and it is common overseas. It has become apparent that with the way the Act is currently written exploration permit holders may be able to avoid the relinquishment requirements of section 37 in a way that was not intended. They may do that by applying under section 36 instead where the terms upon which the extension are granted are entirely at the Minister’s discretion. The bill amends those provisions to ensure that exploration permit holders who have not made a discovery and who want to undertake continued basic exploration beyond the first 5 years must relinquish at least 50 percent of the permit area on renewal of the permit. 
The bill also removes the requirement for permit details to be lodged with the district land registrar because that is unnecessary and confusing. Those lodgement requirements are a throwback to the old regime under the Mining Act and Coal Mines Act under which licences included an automatic right of access to land. A fundamental difference between the Crown Minerals Act and the Mining Act and Coal Mines Act is that the Crown Minerals Act does not give a person an automatic right of access to land when he or she is granted a permit. Before a permit holder can enter land to carry out anything other than minimum impact activities he or she must reach an appropriate land access arrangement with each landowner and/or occupier. Permit holders who enter into an access arrangement lasting for 6 months or more must lodge details of the access arrangement with the district land registrar so that it can be recorded against the affected land titles. That alerts any prospective purchaser that the land is subject to a binding access arrangement. The requirement to lodge access arrangements will continue. 
I commend this bill to the House. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (NZ National—Rodney) 
: 
 This Crown Minerals Amendment Bill is very important legislation because it expunges property rights without compensation. If a Government is about to expunge property rights without compensation careful thought should go into that. I was not on the Commerce Committee that considered this bill but I have examined the commentary the report of the select committee in some detail. I note that it is a split report. I note that National and ACT members have submitted a minority report to this House and therefore the majority report is the view of the Government. Far from it being a careful consideration I find it a sloppy piece of work. I will explain over the next few minutes why that is so and why this bill should not be read a second time. It actually should go back to the select committee for the work to be done more carefully. 
This issue is so important because when the High Court looked at this issue in 2000 it was not some inexperienced judge that looked at it; Acting Chief Justice Heron looked at it. He said that property rights that existed under the Mining Act 1971 and the Coal Mines Act 1979 were not automatically expunged by the Crown Minerals Act 1991. He pointed out that there was no automatic right of renewal of a licence but he certainly argued that there was the right to apply for a renewal of a licence. That is critically important because this legislation will totally expunge that right. Under the Mining Act 1971 a licence to mine was a property right. Under the Crown Minerals Act 1991 the permits that are issued are not property rights. So these are important issues. 
Of course as the Minister of Energy has said when this matter was taken to the High Court again Justice Chisholm appeared to give a somewhat different decision. But if we look at the report of the Government members of the select committee we see that it states: “Justice Chisholm disagreed in the second  
Glenharrow 
 decision with the proposition that mining licence holders continue to have a right to be granted a new licence for the following reasons:”. Justice Heron in the first case did not say they had a right of renewal; he said they had the right to apply for one. There is a big difference. 
If we look at the reasoning of the Government members of the select committee as stated in the majority report to this Parliament which we are debating in this second reading we see that it is absolutely flawed. The Government members of the select committee said that Justice Chisholm in the second court hearing made the decision that licence holders do not have a right to be granted a new licence for first the following reason: “if the court applied Glenharrow’s interpretation this would mean mining licences can be perpetually renewed”. OK but in the previous decision Justice Heron did not say they had a right to be granted a renewal; he said they had a right to apply for one. The first argument of the select committee is totally flawed because the issue is not about licence holders having the right to be granted renewals for perpetuity; the issue is whether they had a right to apply for a variation in the term of their licence. 
The select committee then goes on to say: “the language used in section 77(2) of the Mining Act 1971 suggests the Minister has the right to decline an application suggesting that there is no automatic right of renewal”. That is exactly what Justice Heron said in the first court decision and gives no argument why a licence holder should not have the right to apply for a variation on his or her licence term. The select committee then goes on to say: “The effect of the second judgment”—the committee having given those two reasons for Justice Chisholm’s decision—“is that there is now a court order saying the Minister of Energy cannot grant a new mining licence to Glenharrow.” What sloppy thinking! Of course people cannot apply for a new licence under a repealed Act. No one is suggesting that. The issue is about a variation to the term of a licence and that is not an absolutely new licence. 
That is why my view is the select committee has not thought through these issues carefully at all. Its own reasoning in the different paragraphs of its argument does not stack up. The committee points out that section 77(2) of the Mining Act 1971 suggests that the Minister has the right to decline an application and that there is no automatic right of renewal—which is perfectly fair—then goes on to say that the effect of the second judgment is that there is now a court order saying the Minister cannot grant a new licence to Glenharrow Holdings. There is no logic in the analysis by the select committee at all. 
It gets worse. The select committee states also in its reasoning that “the concept that a new licence can be granted is not reconcilable with the scheme of the principal Act and the Ngai Tahu (Pounamu Vesting) Act 1997 particularly the transitional provisions.” It says that on page 3 of the report. On just the next page the select committee in referring to the Ngai Tahu (Pounamu Vesting) Act 1997 says: “The Act includes a specific provision that existing privileges and the rights and obligations of holders of existing privileges are not affected by this vesting.” That is totally at odds with the argument the select committee has given on the previous page. 
This is sloppy work by the select committee. The Government members of the Commerce Committee should be damned well ashamed of this report. This is a serious issue. Property rights are at stake. If the matter were clear-cut we would not have two senior justices in our High Court including an Acting Chief Justice giving decisions that superficially appear at odds with each other. I am not sure that they are totally at odds because both talk about there not being an automatic right of renewal. They both talk about that. The fact that the issue has been to the Court of Appeal and may in fact end up at the Privy Council shows there are important property rights at stake here. The Government members on the select committee should have done a better job in analysing the serious issues involved. 
It even goes on. The select committee acknowledges: “In the second  
Glenharrow 
 decision Justice Chisholm said that Ngai Tahu does not have the power to veto the variation application.” Again that is at odds with what the report says on the previous page. All I can say is I commend the work of the ACT and the National members of the select committee in making their minority report to this Parliament as it points out the serious issues involved in this case. What I have just quoted to Parliament from the Government members’ own report of their work on the select committee shows—far from what Minister Hodgson just said about careful consideration—the sloppiness of their work. Their report shows they have got themselves totally confused over the key issues of the right to apply for a variation to the term of a licence compared with an automatic right of renewal. 
We clearly have a shambles here—an absolute shambles. We have a situation whereby although this legislation protects the position of holders of mining licences who applied for variations to terms or renewals prior to 5 p.m. on 19 September 2002 there are a whole lot of licence holders—an unknown number—who have not done that because Crown Minerals told them they had no right to do it when in fact according to Justice Heron they may well have had a right to do it. It is a disastrous situation. A Crown agency told licence holders they could not apply for renewals and they did not apply; but they could have applied and if they had done so they would have been protected by this bill. Because they were given bad advice by a Crown agency they did not apply and therefore they are locked out by this bill. Their rights are expunged. 
Worse still this legislation will force everyone into the new permits system. The select committee was told—and this is horrific—that the officials could not tell the committee if and when the Department of Conservation had ever granted access to its lands for the purpose of mining since the 1991 Crown Minerals Act came into effect. This is serious. Property rights are at stake and the future of New Zealand’s mining industry is at stake. That is why National is totally opposed to this shonky legislation. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (NZ Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I stand to support this bill as one who worked in a previous lifetime for what is still New Zealand’s largest gold mining company that of Macrae’s Mining Co. GRD Macraes. It has had various forms over a number of years. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: You had better get ready to go back. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: That is rich coming from a 4 percenter who lost his seat. Instead of a lot of hot air and— 
Jill Pettis 
: Talk about digging. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: —digging his own grave—instead of some of the dramatic extracts we have heard from Opposition members I think it is pertinent to look at this bill for what it is. The Crown Minerals Act provides for the allocation and management of permits for Crown-owned minerals and the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill makes a number of amendments that in my view will improve the management and allocation of rights to Crown-owned minerals. 
We should make the point in this debate that the mining industry makes a huge contribution to this economy. When I worked in the industry some years ago I think the figures showed that gold alone was worth quite a bit more than our wine industry for instance. But because it is a reasonably controversial industry because it involves digging large holes in the ground and because it raises the hackles of some the economic and social contribution that it makes around the country is often lost. For instance GRD Macraes has operations on the West Coast and Otago and I would say that in its lifetime it has put several hundreds of millions of dollars into Dunedin and the Otago community alone both directly and indirectly. So as we go through this bill I think it is worth our noting the huge contribution that the industry makes. 
The bill will address issues that have arisen as has been previously mentioned as a result of a recent High Court decision concerning the transition from the previous regime under the Mining Act 1971 and the Coal Mines Act 1979 to the Crown Minerals Act 1991 regime. Effectively this bill removes the right of licensees to extend or renew their mining licences under the now repealed Mining Act and Coal Mines Act. It also clarifies the requirements for extension of the duration of an exploration permit providing that a permit remains current while an extension of its duration is being processed. I think the key point despite the bluff and bluster of some members opposite that should be reiterated is that the proposed amendments will not in any way be retrospective and therefore any mining licence or variation applications received before the amendment is made must be accepted and processed. 
The National and ACT parties have put a minority view. I acknowledge Dr Lockwood Smith’s view. I did not sit on the select committee that examined this bill but I do know the industry relatively well. As I say the industry makes a huge contribution to our economy. This bill will help I think to shed some light and some clarity on the permitting regime. What I learnt from my years in the mining industry is that one of the biggest battles the industry has is getting variations on permits. I mean no disrespect to our friends in Crown Minerals but one has to jump through huge bureaucracies to dig a hole in the ground extract a mineral and process it. I believe that this bill will add some clarity. I think there are a few others in this House who have worked in the industry such as Damien O’Connor who comes from the heartland of mining the West Coast. I ask members opposite and others to look closely at this bill to do away with the hot air and the dramatic extracts and actually to go through the bill and make their points. The proposed amendments will not be retrospective; therefore any mining-licence or variation applications received before the amendment is made must be accepted and processed. 
I support the bill. As I close I say again that the industry provides an immense number of jobs and dollars for the economy. It is considered by some to be a messy industry and a controversial industry and I know that some in this House are bitterly opposed to it. I am not one of those members. I am one of those members who think we can have a robust minerals industry— 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Tell that to the Minister of Conservation. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: —that is not exploitative of our environment. We can have business and can preserve the environment as long as there are tight rules. The genius to my right will tell us in his speech the secret to his 4 percent success rate. That member said: “Tell that to the Minister of Conservation.” Well I believe that we can have a robust mining industry but I also believe that we have to have very very tight environmental laws and a very very tight environmental framework so that if the industry breaks the rules the industry gets nailed. As with any industry—manufacturing farming or any industry around this country—it must adhere to the rules. I am proud to have been associated with a company that I believe does adhere to the rules a company that has taken a quite unique and flexible view to mining that has engaged with stakeholders right around the country that has attempted just to get on with the job and that makes a huge contribution to this country but does not blow its own trumpet. That attitude should be acknowledged. I commend the bill to the House. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: 
 I would like to start by acknowledging Lockwood Smith’s comments. He is absolutely right; this particular bill expunges property rights. It not only does that but it also does it in a rather peculiar way based on one particular case and one particular issue—that is the case of the greenstone mining company  
Glenharrow Holdings Ltd v Attorney-General and Te Runanga O Ngai Tahu 
. Ngai Tahu received the land and the resources from the Crown under the Ngai Tahu (Pounamu Vesting) Act. That particular Act was fair enough but the Government forgot to include some very important clauses. The case arose out of the Crown Minerals Act that repealed the old 1971 mining Act and the different treatments of mining licences and permits. The transition period between the two Acts did not successfully deal with the change of ownership of land from the Crown to Ngai Tahu. 
The trouble was that the rights that existed for greenstone miners were not extinguished by the Ngai Tahu (Pounamu Vesting) Act. A grandfather clause in that Act stated that the Act was not to affect an existing privilege as defined in the Crown Minerals Act. The Crown Minerals Act also contained a grandfather clause stating “… every existing privilege shall continue to have effect after the date of commencement of this Act as if the Act which applied to the privilege before that date continued in force …”. 
The problems arose as a result of the court case which was in front of Acting Chief Justice Heron one of the top men in the legal system. He found in favour of Glenharrow Holdings in supporting an application for the renewal and variations of its mining rights. It was not a case of renewing them but the rights to apply. I believe the select committee got it wrong in the paragraphs that Lockwood Smith read out. He was absolutely correct—it was not a case of Justice Heron getting it wrong but of the select committee getting it wrong. 
The Crown Minerals Act is essentially anti-mining and anti-private enterprise. It does not recognise miners’ needs for security. Mining industry leaders say that the effect of the appeal court judgment will be to close mines and effectively it will be a disincentive to invest in mines. The mining industry will have less capital to be able to explore. It will also affect the Government-owned coal mine Solid Energy. Its rights will come up for renewal and this particular bill will affect it. When that issue arises the Government will have to deal with it as well. 
Shane Ardern 
: It will simply introduce its own legislation for that. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE 
: Yes it probably will. It is interesting to note that as the appeal court decision stands the Government will not have to pass this retrospective legislation—Associate Minister Harry Duynhoven ensured that. He issued a press statement—and I have a copy of it here—that basically took away all rights for miners to reapply for their licences and extension of their licences. He did so by issuing the statement around midday on the day and giving them 5 hours to apply. It states: “Anyone who applies for a new licence or a variation to the terms of an existing licence after 5 p.m. today”—that is 19 September 2002—“will no longer be covered by the Acts that were repealed in 1991.” Does that not sound very familiar? It is basically a parallel to the late Rob Muldoon’s Government by press release—in which case he was taken to court. 
 Governing by press release is a great example of this Government’s contempt for our parliamentary process. The Government is very fortunate that the appeal court decision has saved Mr Duynhoven and his Government from a very embarrassing court case because there would have been one for sure. 
In summary I would like to reiterate Lockwood Smith’s comments about the select committee getting it wrong—that is absolutely right. The fact is that this legislation is no longer necessary because Harry Duynhoven’s press release basically stopped everybody from reapplying and reasserting the property rights they had prior to that press release. Unfortunately this Government does not care about people’s property rights. All it cares about is trying to close gaps in the legislation that it had created and left simply to avoid its responsibilities. For us sadly this bill is a shambles. New Zealand First cannot and will not support it at this stage. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 United Future had initially hoped to be able to support the Government on this bill. However as it stands it does not fit into the overall policy framework of our party in relation to its interface with the Conservation Act. I will endeavour to explain why. This bill is an amendment to the principal Act which is known as the Crown Minerals Act. The principal Act sets out in section 66 to provide that where access arrangements have not been agreed between a mining permit holder and a private landowner then by way of Order in Council the Government can intervene on the grounds of public interest by referring the matter to an independent arbitrator. 
The general law concerning such agreements is also quite clear—namely that a full fair and adequate sum of money must be paid to the landowner so that he or she is compensated for loss of the use and enjoyment of the land in question. Other conditions could also be imposed on both parties under the Resource Management Act whereby for example they would have to address issues relating to environmental damage reinstatement of the site following closure of the mine etc. Those are the general rules and they are normally thrashed out between the parties until agreement is reached. However a situation could arise where the owner of the property refused to deal with the mining company at all or only on conditions that were grossly unfair and unreasonable. 
A different situation however might arise when we are talking about valuable minerals such as oil gas gold or uranium. In such cases it might well be in the public interest that the matter go to compulsory arbitration so that both sides of the issue can be coolly and objectively assessed and a decision reached that is consistent both with the private property rights of the landowner concerned and the public interest. That is when section 66 kicks in to create a win-win situation for everyone. 
However—and this is where the essential difficulty arises for United Future—any land held or managed under the Conservation Act is specifically excluded from those provisions. That in our view is an untenable provision. It has to be remembered that 33 percent of all New Zealand land is controlled by the Department of Conservation under the Conservation Act and that includes virtually all New Zealand rivers lakes and streams. It also includes everything from pristine conservation areas and National Parks to a variety of rubbish land. 
In relation to that land a completely different set of rules comes into play. The Conservation Act established the Minister of Conservation as the advocate for conservation. He does that through 13 regional conservatories each of which has a conservation advisory board made up of people nominated by the Minister. That is all well and good but if the Minister is personally the advocate for no less than one-third of New Zealand’s land area plus most of its rivers lakes and streams the question needs to be asked to whom exactly is he or she advocating? Is it not true that in the normal course of events an advocate goes to a court and argues his or her case before a judge or an arbitrator? So who is the judge or the arbitrator under the Conservation Act? Sad to say it is the Minister of Conservation so under that Act he or she acts as both judge and jury. Does that constitute due process? 
But wait it gets worse. The public of New Zealand the mining companies the energy generating companies and tourism operators never get to hear exactly what the Minister in his or her role as advocate gets to say to the Minister in his or her role as sole judge and there is no right of appeal. That lacks common sense transparency and balance. As far as United Future is concerned it is therefore unacceptable and a matter that needs to be urgently addressed by the Government. 
I want to draw the attention of this House to just how serious this problem is because we are talking about a major systemic problem in the way the Conservation Act has been set up. Since 1987 no new hydro-generation projects or tourism facilities such as hotels have been permitted on that one-third of New Zealand that is controlled by the Department of Conservation and the Minister of Conservation. Furthermore to quote from the minority National and ACT view on this bill officials were “unable to advise the committee if and when the Department of Conservation has ever granted access to its lands for the purposes of mining since 1991.” Someone said to me that that is not an accurate statement. If it is not accurate why was it in the report? If it is not accurate let us have the accurate information from the Government. So I challenge the Government—if that statement is inaccurate let us have a list of all of the mining projects that have been granted on conservation land since 1991. 
All of this all amounts to a gigantic shooting of ourselves and our economic future in the foot. If the Conservation Act had been enacted at an earlier date we would have no Manapouri hydro scheme no Hermitage no tourism facilities at Mount Cook no visitors’ centre on Mount Egmont etc. etc. As matters stand at present the reality is that international mining companies are bypassing New Zealand and heading off to places like Western Australia where there are proper transparent processes manuals and policies in relation to mining on conservation land. If we are to attract such people back to New Zealand and maximise the benefits to our economy of mining activities then in United Future’s view we must review these matters so that the system provides firstly certainty of process rather than outcomes; secondly fairness; and thirdly transparency. 
I appeal to all parties in Parliament in saying that we must endeavour to create a situation where on the grounds of public interest and as with privately owned land individual projects on Department of Conservation land can be taken to an independent arbitrator judge or similar. That would enable all sides of the arguments including those relating to conservation to be taken into account in a proper structured and above all transparent manner. I am convinced that in many instances we would be able both to allow mining activities to proceed and in conjunction with those activities to add net benefit to the conservation estate itself—in other words it would be a clear-cut win-win situation for all and in particular for the New Zealand economy and the New Zealand people. 
Accordingly I renew my request to the Government that the provisions of the principal Act as they relate to private land be extended—and I know another bill would probably be necessary—to also embrace land held or managed by the Department of Conservation. I would like to see the Government undertake a comprehensive review of the overall operation of the Act so that we at last have proper manuals procedures and policies in relation to mining on the conservation estate. Until that request is acted on United Future is left with no option—in the interests of balance and common sense—but to oppose this legislation. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I would like to commend the member who has just resumed his seat Mr Copeland for a very good speech. He made some excellent points. In assessing the situation here I declare ACT strongly opposes this bill. National also opposes it—and we had a very good speech from Lockwood Smith—as does New Zealand First. It appears that the minority Labour - Jim Anderton coalition Government is dependent on the Greens to pass this legislation. It is green legislation. It is anti-mining legislation as the previous speaker so eloquently reminded us. 
Many people do not realise the size and importance of the mineral mining industry in New Zealand. I believe it is the quiet achiever of the New Zealand economy. The Minister whose name appeared on the bill Harry Duynhoven put out a press release just last week stating that for the first time mining export receipts have surpassed $500 million in a single 12-month period. That is fantastic but the untapped potential is enormous. The Institute of Geological Survey and Nuclear Sciences put out a very good report in 1999 which I am sure Mr Copeland is very familiar with. It estimated that at today’s prices there is $86 billion worth of mineral wealth in 16 minerals alone in New Zealand. We know about the GRD Macraes mine at Macraes Flat. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: Have you been there? 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: Yes I have and I hope the member has too. It is a very good enterprise. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: I worked for them. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: I know the member used to work for that company; he used to be based in Perth and worked for it. He used to come and lobby me when I was in the forestry industry. But what is he doing? He is sitting on the fence here and trying to have a bob each way. If he went back to the mining industry and told it he was supporting this bill he would be kicked out of the office. There is no doubt about that. 
The mining industry has a huge potential in this country. It is estimated that there is $30 billion worth of gold alone in the Hauraki field. And what has this Government and also the previous Government done? It has closed down the whole of the Hauraki field to mining. The problem we have in this country is that 70 percent of our mineral wealth is within the Department of Conservation estate. That department is meant to be the Department of Conservation not the “Department of Preservation”. It is meant to be the steward of the conservation lands that we hold. Modern mining techniques can have a minimal impact on the environment and the wealth generated can give a net conservation benefit many times greater than any impact that mining may have. We are not a rich country and we cannot afford to turn our back on $86 billion of potential wealth but that is the curious situation we have got into. 
I note from the Commerce Committee’s report that the committee actually asked the officials whether they could give it one example of a case where the Minister of Conservation in exercising his powers under the Crown Minerals Act—in which essentially he is given veto rights without any right of appeal—has since 1991 granted access to the conservation estate to a mining operation in New Zealand. They could not find one example of a case where the Department of Conservation through its Minister had allowed access for mining. 
Of course we have the Pike River coalfield which has all its resource consents. But what is the problem? The Department of Conservation will not grant access for mining and the Minister of Conservation Chris Carter sits on his chuff drags his feet and tries to wait it out when there is a tremendous amount of wealth and jobs to be created by that coalfield alone. Hopefully he will be forced into making a positive decision on that issue. It is overdue already and I hope he is listening—wherever he might be—because that is certainly one project that should go ahead. 
I come back to the minority report of the select committee. I was not a member of the committee but an excellent minority view is presented in the commentary on the bill. The High Court decision of Justice Heron made the outcome quite clear. Then there was the case of  
Glenharrow Holdings Ltd v Attorney-General 
 and the decision in that case upheld the property rights held by miners who had gained licences under the Mining Act. It further made it clear that those licensees were able to continue to apply for extensions to their licences gained under that Act. Then what happened? It is recognised that the bill does protect the court-won gains of Glenharrow Holdings specifically protecting its licences and those of a number of other people who had applied for an extension to their licences prior to the decree that was issued by the Hon Harry Duynhoven on 19 September 2002. 
I put it to the House that that decree was ultra vires. The Minister made a decree that effectively retrospectively stripped away property rights. We know that the Hon Harry Duynhoven is the Associate Minister of Energy with delegated responsibility for mining and I know that when he got that appointment the Hon Pete Hodgson made the point that Harry Duynhoven was in charge of everything under the ground. The question now is whether Harry Duynhoven has a right to sit in this House. Therefore what is the date on those proclamations and decrees issued by Harry Duynhoven? Are they legal in law? What is their standing? I would like someone from the Government side of the House to clarify that point. This issue must be a huge embarrassment to the Government. Not only was there a retrospective decree by the Minister stripping away property rights that had been protected by the courts but we now have the spectre of a question of whether that Minister was eligible to hold a ministerial warrant by virtue of the fact that under the Electoral Act Harry Duynhoven is probably not entitled to be a member of Parliament. 
Section 55 of the Electoral Act is very clear. It has been reviewed by Parliament about four times and this House has deliberately and consciously retained sections 55(1)(b) and (c) of that Act in all of those reviews. The Act states quite clearly—spells it out quite clearly—that a member cannot swear allegiance to a foreign principal State. That is the situation and Mr Duynhoven fails that test. Quite frankly I do not think this is a matter for the Privileges Committee to determine; I think that is what the Act states. The law cannot just be changed as a convenience to a member. The law is the law. We might not like it. Certainly we concede it is unfair—and I do that—but the law is the law. If Parliament—the body that passes the laws—does not uphold the law how can we expect the public to have faith in our courts and our lawmaking institutions? This issue is an inconvenience and an embarrassment—it is—and Mr Duynhoven is a good colleague. We all acknowledge that but that is the law and we cannot just change the law in that way. Clearly this legislation is bad. I believe the decree made by Harry Duynhoven is ultra vires and I would like someone from the Government side of the House to try to clarify that point. 
In conclusion I make the point again that we should encourage mining in this country. In the early days of our pioneering era following European settlement mining gave a huge boost to this country’s economy. Sure a lot of damage was done; it was very rough. But if one goes to the countryside today one finds those scars cannot be seen; in many places they have been totally healed. With modern techniques mining can be carried out in a very very environmentally responsible manner. I repeat again that there is $86 billion worth of wealth in this country in 16 minerals alone 70 percent of which is in the Department of Conservation estate—and the Minister of Conservation under successive Governments has denied access for mining every time it has been sought. We could not be given one example of a case where the department has allowed access to the public conservation estate for mining. 
SHANE ARDERN (NZ National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 I am pleased that the member for Whanganui is quite happy to see me take a call. That member has not turned up to a single “flatulence tax” meeting anywhere in the electorate despite the fact that there have been many of them up and down the country. 
We are here to talk about the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill and I intend to do so. Once again I say it is an outrage to have a socialist Government that cares nothing for property rights development potential jobs or anything else that makes the country work. In fact the old cliché “If it moves tax it; if it keeps moving tax it; and if it stops moving subsidise it to get it moving again.” could never apply more than it does to this bill. As my colleague said the bill itself—or the work that was done in the Commerce Committee—is very sloppy. All that I need to do is to refer Government members to the first reading debate when the Hon Paul Swain said— 
Jill Pettis 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask the member to withdraw the statement he made about my not having attended any public meetings in my electorate on the “flatulence tax” issue. I have not attended any because there have not been any. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is an issue for debate. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member has inadvertently misled the House in this sense: yesterday I was at a public meeting in the city of Wanganui on the subject of flatulence. The meeting had been advertised in the  
Wanganui Chronicle 
. If that was not a meeting in her electorate— 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: The member was invited? 
SHANE ARDERN 
: I am sure she probably was invited but if she was not I will take her word for that. However the fact is that she may have misled the House with her statement. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: All members are honourable members. Their word is their bond and if it is found to be otherwise there are other courses of action. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I hope that has not come off my time. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No it has not. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: To get back to the bill I point out that it is a sloppy piece of work for the reason that in the first reading the Hon Paul Swain said it would not be retrospective. That is what he said. Yet that statement is clearly contradicted by clauses 22 and 23. Those clauses absolutely contradict that. The wider constituency in the mining industry was led to believe by a Minister of this House that the bill would not be ultra vires. That is what the industry was told. Yet when we look in the bill we see it is ulta vires. 
The select committee in the minority report also stated it had asked the officials of the Department of Conservation whether they could advise the committee as to whether the department had ever granted access to its lands for the purposes of mining since 1991. That is a simple enough question to answer; there would be no difficulty in finding an answer to that if the officials went back through their records. So they went back through their records and found that the answer was no access has never been granted. The Hon Ken Shirley made a very good point when he said that there is something like $86 billion worth of minerals tied up in New Zealand at the moment under the ground and that most of that is on Department of Conservation land. 
How is it that the Government goes around the country talking about growth jobs and lifting us back into the top half of the OECD yet brings to this House legislation that runs like jackboots right over the top of all those objectives and over property rights? How can that be? I invite a member on the Government side of the House to take a call and fill me in on that. Maybe I have missed a bit somewhere. Maybe the Government has been talking about something that we have not caught up with. My colleague Pansy Wong at the time that this bill was being promoted said that the National Party members of the select committee were absolutely outraged that the bill absolutely ignored the High Court judgment—the judgment of the Acting Chief Justice at the time Justice Heron. He was the Acting Chief Justice not somebody who was just a new appointee and who may not have been up to speed with the issue. This bill totally ignores that judgment. It has not taken it into consideration at all—not under any circumstances. 
This bill goes right across property rights and right across what the High Court found—right across what that finding stated about property rights with regard to the 1971 Act—and it brings us to a situation where the only conclusion that those in the mining industry can come to is that this Government cannot be trusted. We cannot trust it. Whatever it says it will not do. Regardless of what the issue is the Government will rule over the top of it because there may be a fringe group out on the hard left that the Government needs to support it in a vote just like the one we have in this House today. It is interesting to note that at last United Future has taken a stand and said that it will not support this legislation which is not good for growth or for the things that United Future was led to believe that this Government would support. Therefore United Future will not support this bill. Well what do we know? We are back to Jim Anderton and the Greens—back to that team again. We will see some fostering of friendships there in the next few days because Labour will need those votes more and more over the months to come. 
This bill also flies right in the face of what international experience shows us. I was recently away at a conference in Western Australia where at a town called Karratha about 1500 kilometres north of Perth $10 billion worth of ironsand per year is extracted and exported to Japan mainly. At the per tonne price that the Western Australians are paid for their ironsand that is billions of tonnes of material. We would think that that would have a huge environmental impact. We should think about how they manage that in a way that will not have an everlasting totally devastating impact on the Western Australian landscape. 
The Government members on the opposite side of the House should hop on a plane—instead of flying to Fiji for their usual junket away—and go and look at that. 
David Benson-Pope 
: Careful! 
SHANE ARDERN 
: Careful about what? Those members should hop on a plane and go and have a look. They should investigate what the Western Australians do there and look at the Australian law. The Western Australian Government is a Labour Government as well. I tell those members to go and see what the Western Australians do. They will find that Western Australia’s economy is strong robust and growing faster than New Zealand’s because Western Australia has sensible laws. Employment in a place like Western Australia has strong growth. The place is going ahead and prospering on the back of a commodity—ironsand—and is doing so in a way that protects the environment. 
Here we have members on the Government side of the Chamber who carp away at me because they do not like what I am saying. Yet they take absolutely no notice of those international examples that are there for them to go and look at. Why did the select committee not have a look at that before it came back to this House with stupid legislation that is retrospective that runs like jackboots over the top of property rights that brings no clarity to those involved in this industry and that gives them no faith that this Government will protect them in any way at all let alone encourage them. Why does that member who has been yelling at the top of his voice back at me not go and talk to the Department of Conservation about how many permits have been allowed? Why does he not do that? Maybe the member will take a call and answer those questions after I have completed my speech but I doubt it. 
At the moment $500 million dollars per annum of exports come from our mining industries and there is the potential for that to grow 10 times. This Government is standing in the industry’s way as it does with most things that are profitable most things that potentially could help it to carry out the social programme which it wants to carry out most things that would create jobs most things that earn revenue and most things that are sustainable. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Commerce Committee by majority be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
Labour 52; Green Party 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8. 
Question agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 62 
Labour 52; Green Party 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8. 
Bill read a second time. 
Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Acting Minister of Health) 
: 
 I move  
That the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill be now read a second time 
. The Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill is about public safety. It is designed to protect the health and safety of the public by providing mechanisms to ensure the lifelong competence of health practitioners. 
The bill has been in preparation for over 3 years and has been the subject of much consultation and debate—in fact so much so that at a recent conference on legislative drafting the Parliamentary Counsel Office used it as an example of a process involving sound policy development and policy decision-making. Such an extensive consultation process provides the foundation of good legislation. 
The Health Committee has now reported the bill back to Parliament after receiving and considering 265 public submissions. That was the final stage of the consultation process and many of the recommendations made by submitters were accepted by the committee and have been incorporated into the legislation. I am happy to recommend to the House that it accept the committee’s amendments subject to some technical changes. For example the Health and Disability Commissioner recommends that only 3 weeks not 3 months is an appropriate period for a practitioner to respond to a complaint. 
Issues are raised in the minority reports that cannot be substantiated and in some cases even contradict previous stances. There is a focus on the concerns of the professions with scant regard for consumer concerns. There is a claim that the bill is not based on the Medical Practitioners Act which is acknowledged as a very successful piece of legislation. In fact the Medical Practitioners Act was used by parliamentary counsel as the basis for drafting the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill. There are 110 clauses out of a total of 167 relevant clauses and the schedules that are based directly on the Medical Practitioners Act. All the major concepts of the Medical Practitioners Act have been carried forward into the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill and have been adjusted where necessary to generic terms in order to provide a framework that can apply to all health practitioners not just doctors. The basic principles of ongoing competence separation of the registration process from the disciplinary process and the declaration of quality assurance activities have all been carried through. 
The Medical Practitioners Act required the Director-General of Health to review the quality assurance provisions after a 2-year period. The Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill incorporates the recommendations made as a result of the review in 1999. Also taken into account were the recommendations of the Health Committee in 2001 after considering the Medical Practitioners (Foreign Qualified Medical Practitioners) Amendment Bill in the name of the Hon Ken Shirley and the petition of the Hon Nick Smith and 828 others. Both Mr Shirley and Dr Smith expressed concern about the operation of the Medical Practitioners Act. The Government undertook to address their concerns in the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill and we have delivered on that commitment. 
There is a claim that the scopes of practice concept is new and untested. The Medical Practitioners Act however is based on scopes of practice. The Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill simply adapts the concept to express broad scopes of practice in generic terms that can apply to all health practitioners. 
It is also claimed based on the response to an Official Information Act request from the New Zealand Medical Association that the Ministry of Health did no background work on scopes of practice. The response from the ministry actually was that it had no written papers but all the background papers had already been made publicly available during the consultation process. 
In a discussion document released in September 2000 the ministry sought comment on the concept of scopes of practice. Ninety-four percent of respondents supported the concept provided that there was consistency between professions and clarity on overlapping scopes of practice. These issues were addressed in the paper seeking Cabinet approval for the concept and the Cabinet paper with the background discussion document were placed on the Ministry of Health’s website over 2 years ago. In its 2002 publication  
Nurse Practitioners in New Zealand 
 the Ministry of Health included a section “What is a scope of practice?” much of which discusses the development of scopes of practice for nurse practitioners. 
 The Health Committee included a section on scopes of practice when it reported on Nick Smith’s petition in 2001. In this section Dr Smith is quoted as believing that “specialist registration as a dermatologist in New Zealand is effectively a closed shop”. The committee expressed the view that the proposed Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act which would override the Medical Practitioners Act could address the issue of highly specialised medical practitioners not being able to practise. The Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill provides for broad scopes of practice in most cases; however after Mr Shirley and Dr Smith expressed concern about the inability of some overseas-trained doctors to register in order to practise in New Zealand the Government undertook to introduce legislation that would allow a clinician with a limited scope of practice to practise in our country within that limited scope. The Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill delivers on that undertaking by allowing for a scope to be tailored for an individual in some circumstances. 
To allow flexibility under the Act to accommodate future changes in technology and the delivery of health services clinical decisions are the responsibility of the registration authorities and may be adjusted through a transparent process without the need for legislative change. But the purpose of the bill is to protect the public. In return for the increased powers of professions in respect of clinical decisions there are checks and balances to ensure that registration authorities are held accountable for complying with the Act through the Minister of Health directly to Parliament. One such check is that the Minister will appoint members of authorities after seeking nominations from professions and the public. This process will also ensure there is an appropriate mix of clinical skills consumer interests and gender and ethnic perspectives on each authority. 
It is particularly curious that the ACT party is concerned about those powers when in 2001 it was introducing legislation to take away some of the clinical decision-making powers of the Medical Council and to give them to the New Zealand Qualifications Authority—a Crown entity appointed by the Minister of Education and again accountable through that Minister to Parliament. 
Notwithstanding the bill’s requirement that the Minister consult those people who are affected by the proposed list there is a tension between the interests of health consumers and those of health practitioners and I note that in the minority reports there is comment that submitters’ concerns have not been addressed. However there is no reference to the fact that submissions from consumer groups supported the quality assurance activity as originally drafted. The committee sought to balance those two perspectives and I compliment it on the recommended changes. The reporting requirement for a quality assurance activity is new but these reports will help to demystify quality assurance and reassure consumers that the protection afforded practitioners is in the public interest. Similarly they will provide the Minister of Health with the assurance that the public interest is being met. 
On the issue of complaints processing the committee recommended changes to clarify the two levels of charge in relation to professional misconduct and I congratulate committee members on the new wording. I support their view that in fact all matters that get to the stage of a disciplinary hearing are likely to be serious and that differentiation between degrees of seriousness is likely to be reflected in the penalty imposed rather than in the charge. The bill will not prevent professional groups from setting codes of ethics as they have traditionally done and they will continue to do so I am sure. But there is a distinction between the setting of such codes and the standards for ethical conduct on which professional conduct committees will need to make judgments under the Act. 
The bill introduces a new mechanism for ensuring that medicines are distributed in a safe environment by requiring operators of pharmacies to be licensed. 
The Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill is innovative legislation that provides a framework for the regulation of health practitioners where there is a risk of harm to the public. It has gone through a thorough process of debate and discussion. Now it is time to make it law to ensure that practitioners registered under its provisions are competent to practise. At a recent medical law forum held in Wellington a principal of Chapman Tripp Sheffield Young said the following in a paper presented to the forum: “The key to the success of the HPCA Act will be the implementation of variable scopes of practice and whether the bill has achieved the right balance between risk and intervention so that the health sector and the public support the process.” I commend this bill to the House. 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT (NZ National—Kaikoura) 
: 
I am not surprised that the Hon Ruth Dyson gave the lead speech in this debate on this bill because the Minister of Health does not want to be anywhere near it. It is my understanding that an assurance was given - certainly to the Association of Salaried Medical Specialists - that this bill would not be in the House this week. The reason that assurance was given and the reason that the National Party will not be supporting this bill is that there are major problems with it. This bill which has 272 pages tries to be all things to all people and does not achieve any of them. There are major concerns about this bill. This bill should not have been a political bill. It should not have had the New Zealand National Party the ACT party and the New Zealand First Party voting against it. This bill should have been about producing a standard for public safety in terms of our health professionals that all parties in this House agreed to. But that was not achieved and I will outline some of the reasons why it was not achieved and why the National Party will be voting against this bill. 
Its aims are not ones that are not worthy. It aims to ensure that all health practitioners be they nurses doctors dentists occupational therapists physiotherapists or the others who make up the 11 groups included are competent to practise and keep up to date through their practising life and that there are appropriate disciplinary and investigative procedures in place when things go wrong. Those are worthy ideals. But this bill which was supposed to be based on the Medical Practitioners Act 1995 is a far cry from that Act. The Medical Practitioners Act was very successful legislation which made a huge difference to how medicine was practised in this country. It solved some of the problems of the previous 30 years. 
When the Hon Ruth Dyson talked about Nick Smith’s petition which was about a dermatologist who practised in Marlborough and Nelson she mixed up concerns about how the profession decides on competence with concerns about this bill and scopes of practice. After the Medical Practitioners Act the New Zealand Medical Council was able to register people like Dr Hornbeck and was able to override some of the decisions of the colleges but that had not been happening. The pressure that was put on by Nick Smith’s petition and the ACT member’s bill brought that to light and from that time the Medical Council did override some of the decisions and we did look at having more effective registration of some of our foreign doctors. So that is not a sound argument for the scopes of practice concept that is put up in this bill. It is a very new and untested concept. 
The bill repeals 11 Acts of Parliament and covers 55000 professional people. National members will not be supporting it because the Government has bitten off more than it can chew and has failed to give proper rigorous analysis to the new concepts it is proposing as it combines 12 professional groups. Those groups are chiropractors dentists dentitions medical auxiliaries doctors nurses occupational therapists physiotherapists opticians ophthalmologists pharmacists and psychologists. They all come under this one piece of weighty legislation. Those groups have different levels of Acts of Parliament governing them at the moment. Some are as outdated as 1948. 
Some among that group like doctors have modern comprehensive legislation that they want to keep. Doctors in New Zealand want out of this bill. They do not want to be included under this bill. They want to stay under the Medical Practitioners Act because they have huge concerns about how this bill will operate. They are under modern legislation that is working well and they do not want to come under this legislation. That bill which was introduced by National in 1995 was well consulted on. There was not disagreement about that bill as there has been about this bill. It was well-thought-out legislation that solved 30 years of problems for doctors and for their patients. It improved patient safety in New Zealand which is not to say that everything was perfect but all in all that legislation did improve the situation markedly. There was appropriate registration of doctors and ongoing credentialing of them through their working lives via continuing medical education; and quality assurance programmes developed and flourished in all our hospitals and health services. 
Those quality assurance activities focused on systems failure. Thirteen percent of people admitted to hospital suffer iatrogenic harm. “Iatrogenic” means harm caused by the nature of a patient’s treatment—that is the pills a patient takes the treatment a patient receives and the fact that the patient might have been exposed to hospital infection. Good quality-assurance ensures that mistakes near misses and systems failures are discovered and corrected and that one has the ability to learn from mistakes. The Medical Practitioners Act also saw complaints against doctors treated in a very different way. After 1995 the Health and Disability Commissioner investigated all breaches of the code of rights and all complaints. 
I am pleased to see a one-stop shop developed in this bill; that is one of the things I have supported. There are problems with long delays in the processing of complaints and we will support the amendment that provides that health practitioners have only 3 weeks in which to respond to the Health and Disability Commissioner. But all in all district health boards doctors and most members of the public now have more confidence in the medical profession and their hospitals due to the Medical Practitioners Act. 
Enter this bill which bears little resemblance to that Act. The problems are scopes of practice the power of the Minister increased cost ministerial appointments to registering bodies quality assurance changes lack of timeliness of complaint resolution and cultural competence. What has the Government got right? There are some things that it has improved. I do think that some of the changes to the quality assurance processes will be an improvement. Also some of the practitioner groups are under very old legislation and this bill will be an improvement for them. If the Ministry of Health had consulted more widely—and by “consult” I mean actually listening and changing things that the groups found unacceptable; not just giving those groups a lecture on what was going to happen—we would have a better bill before us. 
Scopes of practice are a problem. Where is the intellectual and academic work on that concept? Nowhere. The concept has never been used in New Zealand or anywhere else. The New Zealand Medical Association made an Official Information Act request for the Ministry of Health to supply it with its papers on scopes of practice. What was the result of that? Nothing because no work in a paper form had been completed. It seems that two of the policy sector groups had had a conversation about scopes of practice. Well that is not good enough for New Zealand. We really do not have a clear understanding of what scopes of practice will mean. Two people in the ministry thought it up. We have already had Annette King endorsing nurse anaesthetists in two speeches. The Minister will have the right to decide on the scopes of practice for these professional groups. One cannot consult on a concept that is not defined until it appears in a bill. As no one is too sure how those scopes will operate there is widespread concern especially from the 10000 doctors and 50000 nurses. Will the scopes be wide? Why are they not using educational achievement and attainment? What is going to happen when there are disputes? Then there are the problems with ministerial powers. There are many other problems with this bill which I outlined before and I do not have time to go into all of them. They need to be sorted but not just in the Committee stage; they should have been sorted earlier. The National Party will not support this bill. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 I welcome the opportunity to speak to this bill. I should mention that New Zealand First will not be supporting it as has already been indicated in the minority report shared with other parties from this side of the Chamber. That said I want to say at the outset that the intent of the bill is laudable. I have no argument with the concept of this proposed legislation—ambitious as it might seem. Unfortunately what is now being presented to this House is a far cry from what was originally introduced. The protection of health consumers is of paramount importance and the regulation of health practitioners is a vital and necessary component of that protection. However there are aspects of this bill that are quite disturbing and after hearing submissions from interested parties I am not alone in having serious misgivings about features of this bill. 
Let me start by looking at the word “competence”. How is that defined and how will it be assessed? The rationale for its non-inclusion is that standards change and vary between professions. But could not consideration have been given to a standard level clause? The definition in clause 5 of the bill describes the required standard of competence as being “the standard of competence reasonably to be expected of a health practitioner practising within that health practitioner’s scope of practice.” Nowhere in that definition is reference made to patients. Surely patient outcome should be mentioned somewhere in that definition if not as the central component. 
As for the term “health practitioner” who qualifies as a health practitioner and who does not? What are the implications for groups such as ambulance drivers who apply medical procedures but are not deemed to be health practitioners or audiometrists who might be put out of work if the provision of hearing services is limited only to audiologists? What of the health practitioners who fail to register because the compliance costs are too high? Will this bill create an underground health system comprised of unregistered practitioners providing lower-cost health care to patients who cannot afford the registered practitioner? The concept of scopes of practice is confusing untested and a potential area of conflict amongst professionals. The Minister of Health is given too much power over health professionals in this bill which could be used to exert undue influence over a profession. These are some of the issues that need to be addressed before I would consider lending my support to this bill. 
I have already mentioned compliance costs and I would like to look at that issue more closely because I think it will be a major issue for some health practitioners. Take for example a self-employed podiatrist working in a suburban clinic treating the feet of mostly elderly patients some of whom can barely afford the consultation fees. This person is making a living now but by the time all the overheads are taken care of there is not a lot of excess cash left. As well as registration costs this legislation could see that person having to spend thousands of dollars on equipment and that might be just enough to tip the balance between that person having a viable business and tossing it in or working underground because it is just too hard to make a go of it. Surely that is not the intent of this bill. Let us take a reality check—health professionals are not all wealthy doctors on high salaries. There are thousands of self-employed practitioners out there who are battling along trying hard to keep their heads above water. Let us not forget about them. 
The concept of scopes of practice is one that is likely to cause confusion and conflict. As I mentioned earlier this model is ill-defined and ill-tested. It is considered by many to be a failure in the only other area that has implemented it—the Canadian province of British Columbia. As yet it is unclear how disputes between professions with overlapping scopes of practice will be resolved. An example of that conflict is the alarm being expressed by doctors trained in the administration of anaesthetics at the suggestion that registered nurses be allowed to prescribe and administer anaesthetic drugs. That proposal is consistent with other policies such as the introduction of independent midwifery and changes to the Medicines Act allowing health-care practitioners other than doctors to prescribe medicines. Those changes save money but at what cost to the well-being of patients? 
Without wishing to belittle the training and professionalism of those in the nursing profession I wonder why anaesthetists undergo a minimum of 13 years of extensive training first in medicine and then in specialised training only to be told that a nurse with considerably less training will be able to undertake their duties. A lot of them are wondering too. I bet a lot of patients will be wondering why on earth we will be controlling their anaesthesia at a time when they are actively suspended between life and death. If decisions such as these are left to the Minister how can we be sure that intense lobbying and pressure by interest groups will not influence the outcome? To leave everything in the final analysis to the Minister is anathema to democratic processes and smacks of Big Brother. It also leaves the Minister open to charges of manipulation and corruption. 
Another concern I have with how scopes of practice will actually work in practice is that the concept seems to be trying to achieve two separate things. One is registration or standard-setting and the other is credentialing or certification of individuals within standards. I feel that this issue has not been thought through properly especially as they are entirely separate facets of the Medical Practitioners Act with registration happening under the auspices of regulations set out in that Act and credentialing happening individually in the work domain. 
 I think we need to be careful here that two separate matters are not being merged into one because of confusion and of lack of consultation as to how things operate in the real world. I feel that the medical profession already gets pretty bad press for its handling of adverse events and complaints against it. People have become quite cynical over time when they see doctors policing themselves with only the most glaring cases of incompetence being prosecuted. Even then the practitioners seem to get off very lightly compared with the victims some of whom die due to wrong diagnosis and treatment or in some cases wilful mistreatment. 
This bill does nothing to inspire confidence that complaints will be dealt with in a fair and transparent way or that the interests of patients will be given centre stage. The focus of this bill is not on the consumer but rather on the provider. The power to investigate complaints and control the process will be given to the tribunal. From the outset this adversarial approach does not engender faith in the system. On the contrary it sets up an environment of hostility and weariness between health professionals and consumers undermining the trust that is so essential in such a relationship. Correct me if I am wrong but this bill seems to limit the avenues available to consumers who wish to lay a complaint and it seems to be most concerned with protecting the practitioners from the possibility of any fallout from complaints from consumers. 
What has set this bill apart from other legislation that this Government has been responsible for introducing? There is no mention of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles. I wonder why. Are health practitioners exempt from applying the principles of the treaty that the Government has required other sectors of our community to adhere to or is the bill’s intent to leave that responsibility to particular professional groups? 
I feel that we should not be too hasty in repealing the Medical Practitioners Act for the simple reason that if something is not broken why fix it? The robustness of the Act is evidenced by the fact that this bill is modelled on it. Given that the scope of this bill is much wider than that of the Medical Practitioners Act and that many submitters are predicting problems ahead why not keep both? At least they should be kept until the legislation is reviewed after 3 or so years. 
Doctors I have corresponded with have expressed concern at the lack of consultation on aspects of this bill most notably the concept of scopes of practice which comes to us courtesy of the policy unit of the ministry rather than from professionals actually working as health practitioners. Doctors have distinct responsibilities and accountabilities the substance of which they fear will get submerged in this bill. I have already noted that patient outcomes should be included in the assessment of competence. It is easy for legislation such as this to get bogged down in bureaucratic legalese and for us to lose sight of its reason for existence which in this case is the protection of patients and customers of health practitioners and health-care providers. 
JUDY TURNER (United Future) 
: 
 First I want to take the opportunity to thank the 265 submitters for their feedback on the health practitioners competence assurance proposal. I commend those who have been involved in the design and development of this legislation for the open way in which they have responded to the inquiries of United Future and the concerns we have presented. As a consequence we believe that the bill has continued to evolve into a workable proposition and a good piece of legislation. 
The vast majority of submissions presented to the Health Committee were from health practitioners or from persons representing particular health professions. There were a smaller number of submissions from consumer groups and business interests. That created an imbalance that made it imperative for United Future to reflect on the bill as being primarily about public safety not just professional development concerns. It was very clear that consumer groups placed their emphasis on very different issues than the professional groups. Consumer groups were often concerned with restricting the powers given to professional bodies while professional bodies were concerned at the level of consumer representation on professional conduct committees and disciplinary tribunals and about the powers that were to be attributed to the Minister. United Future is satisfied that a balance has been struck between the appointment of regulatory bodies and disciplinary tribunals that reflects consumers’ concerns that health professionals are not judge and jury while acknowledging the intention to maintain high professional standards. 
United Future has met with many and varied health groups and health practitioners in the development of the bill. It has been important for us to have the opportunity to speak with health professions that to date have not been covered by any legislative framework but who are very keen to meet the requirements and be included under the provisions of this bill. We have been equally interested in the feedback from the 11 professions for whom existing regulatory statutes will be repealed so that they can come under this umbrella legislation immediately. 
United Future is satisfied that health practitioners on both sides of the bill are supporting its general intention but we are aware of ongoing concerns and I will address a few of those concerns now. Scopes of practice is one such issue. A scope of practice describes what a practitioner is qualified and competent to do under what conditions and for how long. There was a fear that scopes of practice would be too narrow and prescriptive but that has never been the intention of scopes of practice. United Future has pursued that concern and is satisfied that scopes of practice are determined by the appropriate health regulatory boards and that they will therefore determine what scope of practice is best suited and whether it is sufficiently broad. The regulatory boards will have the discretion to limit a scope of practice. For example an international doctor with specialist skills might be given a scope of practice to specialise in but might not be permitted to practise in a more general sense. 
Quality assurance activities have also concerned submitters. Professional groups are very clear about how essential quality assurance activities are to iron out systemic problems and ensure patient safety and about the importance of protecting a safe and open environment for practitioners to discuss their concerns and practice. On the other hand consumer groups have raised concerns about instances in which vital information might be withheld from an inquiry. As a consequence of these concerns the bill has incorporated recommendations by some submitters that will now allow quality assurance activities to be protected unless there is a current investigation into the same matter. That means that no one will participate in a quality assurance activity without being first warned that the outcomes might be required for an investigation. No one will be caught out. 
The inclusion of the restricted activities list is important for public safety. Issues have been raised about when the list will be enacted with some submitters indicating that they wanted that prescribed at the same time that the bill is enacted. However we believe that would contradict the intention of the bill. Ongoing decisions of this nature should happen after full consultation with all affected health professionals. While the committee expects that practices like anaesthesia invasive surgery and eye examinations might well need to be included we believe that health professionals and not legislators are best suited to make those medical decisions and that it is appropriate for the Minister of Health to oversee that process. We have seriously considered the wish of the Medical Association to be exempt from the new Act and believe that we are continuing to act with the support of the Medical Council and most of the interest groups we have met. 
This bill also proposes to amend several existing Acts. Of particular note is the Medicines Act which will be amended to introduce new regulatory provisions for the operation of pharmacies. There is a proposal in this bill for partial deregulation which has not been popular with submitters from the retail sector who lobbied for full deregulation. United Future has weighed this issue up carefully. Due to the present level of Government involvement in this sector with dispensing fees and other Pharmac price-setting it feels that partial deregulation is the wisest choice at this stage. We support this provision. We do not feel that it is appropriate to make more drastic changes to fully deregulate. We believe that partial deregulation is a common-sense precautionary move to ensure public safety and allow the industry to assimilate the new commercial environments that will be created. 
United Future is continuing its support of this bill believing that members of the public should be at their safest when in the care of health professionals. That has not always been the case and at those times it is unhelpful if the public perception is that health professionals are an old boys’ club that protects its own regardless of the consequences. United Future does not support that perception and therefore welcomes legislation that seeks to protect the public from professional incompetence and unethical behaviour while providing protection for caring practitioners against vexatious claims. This is a hugely complex bill and for that reason we welcome the review clause which means that any adjustments that might need to be considered will not suffer undue delay. 
HEATHER ROY (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I welcome this opportunity to rise to speak to the second reading of this bill. ACT New Zealand will not support this bill for the reasons outlined by both the National member and the New Zealand First member. We have outlined these reasons in some detail in our minority view in the commentary which was a joint one. 
This is a huge piece of legislation that the officials tell us and have told us often has been 3 years in the making. However it was pushed through the Health Committee with a great deal of urgency despite the fact that it is 272 pages long and covers 11 professional groups. Those groups are medical practitioners dentists pharmacists physiotherapists occupational therapists nurses dieticians psychologists chiropractors medical auxiliaries and optometrists and dispensing opticians. The bill will repeal the eleven Acts that currently govern those professions. Some of those professions have been working under outdated legislation for far too long. If I were still working in my field as a trained physiotherapist I would currently be working under a 1949 piece of legislation as do the occupational therapists. The dieticians are not far behind working under law that was passed in 1950. For those groups change is long overdue. Practice and technology have moved on significantly in the intervening years. 
However I want to raise my concern that that reason alone does not justify our accepting this legislation which I feel is inadequate to cover those professional bodies as being the best that can be done for public safety. Many of the smaller professions that are very keen on the legislation going ahead would have benefited from more time having been taken over this legislation in an attempt to get the various parts absolutely right for their professional practice. The commentary on the bill under “Background” states: “The Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill is intended to provide a framework for the regulation of health practitioners in order to protect the public where there is a risk of harm from the practice of the profession.” The reason that ACT New Zealand does not support this bill is that we do not believe that it will achieve that. 
It concerns me—and the New Zealand First member raised this concern too—that there is no definition of “competence” in the bill. Here we have a piece of legislation that hinges on competence and we were told that the term “competence” was too hard to define. If it is too hard to define how can health professionals be reasonably expected to meet this standard? What standard is it? If it cannot be defined how can it be met? What are they to aspire to? What level of practice should health professionals meet? If “competence” cannot be determined how can judgments be made about individual health practitioners’ performance? The answer to this question of course is that it cannot. 
I have two Supplementary Order Papers in relation to this bill. We have heard that both the New Zealand Medical Association and the Association of Salaried Medical Specialists are not at all happy with this legislation. They have had concerns for some time and they have attempted to be heard. They say that for the professional groups the consultation was not adequate; the registration bodies had adequate time with the officials they said to discuss concerns but the professional bodies were given only a cursory amount of consultation. They are very keen to pull out of this bill. One of my Supplementary Order Papers is introduced for that very reason. It is to remove medical practitioners from the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill. 
The New Zealand Medical Association said that the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill was clumsy bureaucratic and laden with scope for political interference. The Government as I have said claims that the bill aims to protect the public but in reality it will not encourage professionalism—it will work against it. When professionalism is not encouraged is the very time that the safety of the public is at greatest risk. 
The Association of Salaried Medical Specialists said that it had many concerns about the bill. In fact the association wrote to several health spokespeople of the various parties. It said that it had many concerns but that the following were the most critical in terms of the health and safety of the public and in terms of the deficiencies of the bill when contrasted with the higher standards of the Medical Practitioners Act. The New Zealand Medical Association it should be noted also voiced the very same concerns. 
The first concern was conformity of scopes of practice with the registration provisions of the Medical Practitioners Act. We have heard a lot about the scopes of practice and I will not go into a lot of detail because I agree entirely with what the National Party member and the New Zealand First member have said about scopes of practice. They are new untried and untested and despite the assurances that the Associate Minister of Health Ruth Dyson tried to give us nobody is fooled. We in New Zealand will be the guinea pigs who try these. In particular where there are overlapping scopes of practice between various professions it will be very difficult to determine who should be responsible for what and to find the common ground so that good practice is able to be ensured and leading on from that of course the safety of the public. 
The second area of concern was quality assurance. The Medical Practitioners Act which is a much more modern piece of legislation than those that many of the other groups are working under sets out good quality-assurance provisions. The medical practitioners have over the last decade in particular made huge gains in relation to dealing with the public examining their own practice and really updating their codes of practice. They feel that it would be better to stick with the Medical Practitioners Act particularly its quality assurance provisions. They feel that those in the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill are unworkable and will not encourage good quality-assurance. 
The United Future member spoke about the protection that is provided for medical practitioners. In fact this is not the case. The medical practitioners are very worried not only for themselves but for other professional bodies that the protection is not there. When that does not exist the experience is that the professions do not participate fully and in an honest and upfront manner in terms of quality assurance. If we want good-quality safety and practice from our health practitioners then we must allow them that scope—that room—to deal with mistakes that have been made not in a shame and blame way but in a no-blame environment. The Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill does not provide for that. 
The next area is the setting of codes of ethics. The Associate Minister of Health Ruth Dyson mentioned the codes of ethics. The medical practitioners in particular are very worried that this right is being taken away from them. Medical practitioners have always been able to determine their own code of ethics. They are the people working in the area; they know what is necessary. Instead the officials and the Minister of Health in particular will have a large say in codes of ethics. 
The other thing that is very important to the medical practitioners but also to the pharmacists and the dentists is the ability to have elected members on their registration boards and their professional bodies. Under the bill this right may well be taken away from them. The bill does say that scope is there for them to elect people whom they can nominate to go on their professional bodies but in fact the decision is to be made by the Minister of Health and she can easily override those nominations. In a press release that we saw in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 of 22 July—a very recent one—Ms King said that she did not favour elections for such bodies. So although there is provision in the bill for nominations to happen it is most likely that medical practitioners dentists pharmacists and any other profession that wants to have elected members will not in fact be able to do so. 
Another area of concern which has also been mentioned is ministerial control. I have alluded to this several times throughout my speech. The scope for the Minister to have overriding control in many areas of this bill is great and all the medical professions should be very worried about this. It depends of course on one’s Minister of Health but the bill leaves the field wide open for any Minister to come in and make decisions that these professionals should be able to make for themselves. 
For these reasons ACT New Zealand will be opposing this bill and opposing it vigorously. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will support this bill which has had a long 3-year gestation and involved many people in submissions from the professions and so forth. We are pleased to support many of the provisions in the bill and that we managed to get three amendments made to the bill by the Health Committee. I will refer to those later. 
We support the idea of a consistent and transparent framework for the registration of health professionals and for robust complaints and disciplinary procedures with regard to all health practitioners with the same disciplinary processes applying to all health professions. That is a real step forward. I think we all need to recognise that consumers are disillusioned with the health system and the complaints process as a result of the Parry inquiry the Gisborne cervical cancer inquiry and numerous other inquiries. We have much work to do in order to restore consumer confidence in the health system and the complaints procedures surrounding the health professions. We need to have a system in place that protects the public where there is a risk of harm—which is the main objective of this bill—and that protects patients from incompetent practitioners. 
 We need to simplify and speed up the complaints process and to make it more consumer friendly. The present situation is labyrinthine. Up to 14 different agencies can separately investigate the same adverse medical event which is a crazy situation. For that reason we support the idea of a one-stop shop—the Cull proposal—and the idea that all complaints should go in the first instance to the Health and Disability Commissioner. We hope that the new 3-week time frames we have set will speed up the complaints process. We have heard about many consumers having intolerable delays in getting their complaints heard and in going through the system particularly in situations such as the Parry inquiry. 
We support the provision that enables the commissioner to throw out vexatious complaints because those can cause huge stress huge problems and financial loss to practitioners. In a couple of overseas jurisdictions the complementary health practitioners in particular have been targeted by groups that have taken continual vexatious complaints. I believe that midwives have had concerns about that as well. We hope this provision will avoid that pitfall here. 
We are pleased that patients whose rights have been breached will have access to the legal remedy of the Human Rights Review Tribunal and that registering authorities will be able to review the competence of practitioners and to require them to participate in competency programmes. We are pleased with the provision that two—or in some cases three—laypersons or consumers are to be members of the registration bodies. So we are very happy with many aspects of the bill and we are pleased to support them. 
But like other members we have some very real concerns about this bill and in particular about the power it gives to the Minister of Health over all the health professions that it covers—and indeed over those professions that are not directly covered. When the Minister introduced this bill she said she wanted it to strike a balance between the Government controls that are necessary to protect the public and self-regulation by the profession. In the Green Party’s view the bill does not strike the right balance because it gives wide-ranging powers and undue influence to the Minister over all the professions. In particular the Minister is given the right to personally appoint up to 14 members of every governing authority established by the bill and along with other powers the right to be the final arbiter on disputes over scopes of practice and to decide what will be the restricted activities. We believe that those powers taken all together could be used at a future time to exert undue influence covert and overt over health professionals. We only need to think about that to realise that if every member of every health profession in the land—certainly of those professions covered by this bill—is to be appointed by the Minister of Health then he or she is in a sense beholden to that Minister certainly for reappointment. That simple fact can act as a strong incentive to toe the line and can undermine the independence of the professions. 
That is why the Green Party attaches so much importance to the provisions that regulatory authorities are able to elect some members to the registration authority. We believe that allowing the professions to elect some members to their governing authority will have a very positive aspect to it. It will allow them to have some say in the make-up of their governing body—some sense that there is involvement that it is self-regulation and that it is not just all being imposed—and it will ensure some sense of ownership in their authority. Best of all it will mean that the elected members at least will not be beholden to any Minister for their reappointment. I have had some involvement with appointments processes so I have very real concerns about the ability of the process firstly to be used for patronage—for dishing out favours to people who have supported a particular Government—and secondly to act as a constraint that keeps people in line if they have any desire to be reappointed. 
We are delighted that one of the amendments we managed to get in at the select committee stage will allow appointed members to be elected. However as the previous speaker said that provision really does need to be strengthened. The present wording does not oblige the Minister to allow elections; it makes it only a possibility. Given the Minister’s comments that she is opposed to that I think that is a real concern. I foreshadow that I will introduce an amendment that will require the Minister to allow elections to be held if a registering authority requests them. I would advise all the registering authorities to do so for the reasons I have outlined. 
Another amendment I want to foreshadow will include acupuncturists within the scope of this bill. There are extremely significant risks associated with acupuncture. Just to give members one example we can imagine the harm that could occur if acupuncturists did not sterilise their needles. If we were to approach the issue of acupuncturists from a consumer perspective we would definitely include acupuncturists in this bill. In fact it is only for political reasons that they are not included. In our view acupuncturists have an equally or indeed more valid claim to statutory regulation as osteopaths. They have been seeking statutory regulation for literally two decades and the only reason osteopaths are included and acupuncturists are not is that a political promise was made to osteopaths 4 years ago. It is as simple as that. Members should not get me wrong. I am delighted that osteopaths are included but it is unfair and unjust that they are included and acupuncturists are not for no other reason than a political promise that was made. 
The omission of acupuncturists could cause significant anomalies in the future. If acupuncture is made a restricted activity as it should be then only medical and physio-acupuncturists will be able to practise and all other traditional acupuncturists in New Zealand will be prohibited from practising. That is a nonsense. There has been major progress in bringing all the parties in acupuncture together and there is no reason not to include them in this bill. 
Finally the Green Party is concerned that this bill leaves most of the detail of the new system to be decided by regulation after this legislation has been adopted by Parliament. The bill sets up a framework but provides absolutely no parliamentary scrutiny over the implementation of it. Hugely important issues such as scopes of practice which activities are to be restricted and so forth are all to be decided by Order in Council—a secret regulatory mechanism that does not allow any parliamentary scrutiny. In my view many of the issues here that are to be decided by regulation are not technical matters but are significant policy issues that should be decided by Parliament and by parliamentary scrutiny not by regulation. 
Finally we are delighted that the provisions contained in the original version of the bill that would have deregulated pharmacies have been dropped. We are pleased that the Green Party played a role in that. We are pleased our amendment to strengthen that particular provision went through and we want to see it strengthened even further. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I thank the Chair for the opportunity to speak on the bill. I hold this bill up with considerable dismay for a variety of reasons. One of them is that it would have been a huge triumph for Parliament and for the health system if it had been possible to have multiparty agreement on this document. It is a huge indictment on the Labour Government that all the submissions from the New Zealand Medical Association the Association of Salaried Medical Specialists and the New Zealand Nurses Organisation which represent 32000 people say that there has not been enough consultation on this very very important bill. So I hold it up with dismay for that reason. 
But I also hold it up with dismay because it is 272 pages long. It is a monolith the size of a telephone book and it is supposed to be modelled on the Medical Practitioners Act 1996. This veritable monolith of a bill consists of 272 pages and 254 clauses. It represents the typical instincts of a Labour Government to have as much complication as much bureaucracy as the machinations of its socialist mind could possibly conjure up. In many respects it is a case of great déjà vu in terms of what we had 2 years ago with the most unfortunate Health and Disability Act which resulted in the most complicated bureaucratic health organisation that New Zealand has ever seen typified by the 21 district health boards and by an ever-increasing Ministry of Health which is clearly becoming more and more dysfunctional by the day. 
The main purpose of the bill is said to be to protect the health and safety of members of the public by providing mechanisms to ensure that health practitioners are competent and fit to practise their professions. Nobody disagrees with that but I do as I say hold this bill up with great dismay that the National Party cannot support it for the very logical reasons that I have already given. I congratulate the parties and the members of the Health Committee for their forbearance and tolerance of this Labour Government which has failed to ensure that the bill truly is modelled on the Medical Practitioners Act which was so successful. 
I also congratulate the many submitters. Although I was not on the select committee I have read many of those submissions and they are thoughtful and considered. The shame of it is that the Labour Government has not taken notice of them. In fact the submitters were extraordinarily diverse. They varied from chiropractors to the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board—a quite unlikely but indeed important submission—to the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons. But I want to focus on some of the concerns of the New Zealand Medical Association which is a highly professional body representing some 5000 members including a broad range of specialties and including medical students. 
The association supported the basic concepts of the bill but has since had grave misgivings and now has withdrawn its support. This is what it said about consultation: “Quite simply we have no confidence in the policy development process or the consultation process behind this bill. We believe that the lack of adequate consultation has led to a number of major deficiencies within the draft legislation.” The association then went on to talk about professionalism and self-regulation: “This legislation if enacted will strongly diminish the self-regulatory concept in favour of a more politicised and bureaucratic model.” —that again must be a huge indictment on this Labour Government—“The opportunities for greater control by the Ministry of Health and by politicians are substantially increased to the extent that it is doubtful that effective self-regulation can continue. We have no doubt that professionalism is the key to effective and safe health services for New Zealanders and changes need to be made to this draft legislation to restore the concepts of professionalism and professional self-regulation.” In that respect I intend to put an additional amendment to include in the purpose clause that recognition of professional self-regulation be the basis of health practice in New Zealand. 
The association then went on to discuss the question of the complexity of the bill. It pointed out that whereas the Medical Practitioners Act is relatively simple and well-structured legislation in the association’s view this bill is overly complex unnecessarily prescriptive and hard to understand. That has to be of great concern. 
I note in the report of the select committee that there is great concern about scopes of practice. Throughout the process the professions have reflected that concern including the New Zealand Nurses Organisation. It said in its submission: “An issue that is fundamental to the New Zealand Nurses Organisation is the need for increased consultation on specific clauses.” It said that the inclusion of provision for consultation with professional bodies before scopes of practice are introduced into legislation is absolutely vital but that has not happened. It is of great concern when we have the New Zealand Medical Association amongst many submitters withdrawing its support and saying that that is one of the areas that are of great concern to it. 
I want to go on. The powers of the Minister of Health have also caused a great deal of worry. As the member from ACT just pointed out in terms of the powers of the Minister of Health the Minister in appointing representatives to the registering authorities such as the Medical Council of New Zealand has no obligation to appoint from nominations. That is a very very serious aspect. Secondly the Minister will be the final arbiter on scopes of practice—again a hugely serious worry if we are to achieve multiparty agreement on this sort of legislation which is so important for health services. 
There have been some improvements in one area quality assurance but I still remain very concerned that there is not one pathway whereby health groups whatever they are have immunity from—[ 
Interruption 
] I tell the member for Otaki that this is a very serious point. We do want to be able to improve health services in New Zealand and it is important that there is at least one strand whereby health professionals can get together and discuss clinical situations with total immunity. This happens in the New South Wales jurisdiction with perinatal mortality; there is an excellent feedback mechanism that people can use without fear that a case might be taken against them. Of course there are plenty of opportunities for the law if appropriate to come in here but quality assurance is hugely important. 
There are many other aspects of this bill that I am deeply concerned about but of most concern is the fact that the Labour Government has not listened has not consulted and has not achieved multiparty agreement. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Health Committee by majority be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 7; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 46 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6. 
Question agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question that the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill be now read a second time. 
A party vote was called for on the question T 
hat the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 7; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 46 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6. 
Bill read a second time. 
The House adjourned at 5.45 p.m.