Volume 683 Week 20 - Wednesday 22 August 2012 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Volume 683 Week 20 - Wednesday 22 August 2012 
[Sitting date: 22 August 2012. Volume:683;Page:4619. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Wednesday 22 August 2012 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Questions to Ministers 
Infrastructure Investment Programme—Progress 
1. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What progress is the Government making in its infrastructure investment programme? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Over the last four Budgets the Government has directly invested more than $5 billion in ultra-fast broadband hospitals schools rails and roads. The planned spend over the next 4 years is around $18 billion in part to be paid from the Future Investment Fund. The Government has set out to give businesses more certainty and confidence about infrastructure provision and last year we released a second National Infrastructure Plan which is improving planning and decision-making processes around infrastructure investment. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How will infrastructure investment in those key areas like the electricity grid ultra-fast broadband the electrifying of rail and its turn-round programme the upgrade of State highways and new water projects contribute to the Government’s broader priorities in such a tight fiscal environment? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Despite the tight fiscal environment the Government has laid out a 7 to 10-year programme of investment and most of the funding for that investment is locked in. Despite the tight fiscal environment we believe that investing for the future growth we are confident the New Zealand economy will generate is vitally important. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: What steps is the Government taking to improve the quality of managing New Zealand’s tens of billions of dollars that it has invested in that infrastructure? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: That is a good question because often the focus on infrastructure is about new projects but of course most infrastructure is already in existence and there are much larger efficiencies to be gained from managing the current infrastructure better than there are from better scrutiny of the new projects. In the 2011 plan the Government identified six aspects of infrastructure management that are important: stronger investment analysis increased resilience clearer accountability for performance broader funding mechanisms consistent regulation and better coordination. We expect to be improving each of these aspects of the management of infrastructure. Probably one of the challenges coming up is to increase resilience of infrastructure by dealing with new earthquake standards that may flow from the royal commission of inquiry in Christchurch. 
Hon David Parker 
: How does the Minister justify spending billions on projects with low benefit-cost ratios at a time when he is having to borrow billions? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government is not investing in projects with low benefit-cost ratios. If the member is referring to roading investment we are very pleased with the roads of national significance plan which gives businesses the public and the infrastructure industry the certainty that over the next 10 years we will be spending billions on upgrading our roads. 
Question No. 2 to Minister 
HOLLY WALKER (Green) 
: 
 I seek leave for my question to be transferred to the Minister for Social Development to whom it was originally directed. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Child Poverty—Effect of Working for Families 
2. 
HOLLY WALKER (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What comparative impact has Working for Families had on poverty rates for the children of working parents and the children of beneficiaries using the fixed line measure of 60 percent of median income adjusted for housing costs? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 The 2011 household incomes report uses 1998 as the relevant reference year. According to the particular measure that the member has chosen there was a fall in poverty rates as Working for Families was rolled out from 2004 to 2007. For the two groups the member has referred to on the after housing costs fixed line measure child poverty rates fell in working families from around 16 percent to 8 percent and for those in beneficiary families the rate remained about the same. Our priority of course is to focus on those in persistent deprivation because the poverty line measures do not adequately measure those who genuinely suffer persistent deprivation and all the problems that go with that. 
Holly Walker 
: Given that Working for Families has halved poverty rates for the children of working parents but done nothing for the children of beneficiaries leaving 70 percent of them in poverty is he satisfied that the Government is doing enough to meet the basic needs of every child? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: On the second question yes. Through one of the more significant recessions we have seen in many decades the Government has protected the income levels of those in our lowest-income households. But the first part of the question I think demonstrates the difference in views about how to deal with poverty. The Government is focusing on mobility—that in fact a lot of families who at some times and in some periods experience low incomes actually get out of that situation. The in-work tax credit is designed to encourage people from benefits into work and reward them for making the choice of going to work because that is the best decision they can make to improve the incomes of their household and their children. 
Holly Walker 
: What if a parent cannot find work? Do their children still have the same basic needs for food shelter warmth and clothing that they would have if their parents were working? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Yes their children do have basic needs that ought to be met and that is why the Government has throughout the last 4 years since the beginning of the recession in 2008 protected the real value of the incomes of all our low-income households. But I would repeat for the member that those levels of income are part of the story. The other part of the story is to maintain the ability for families and individuals to move on to higher incomes. The analysis of New Zealanders’ time on low incomes shows that a relatively small number stay on low incomes for a long time and even of those who are on low incomes only a proportion suffer the symptoms of persistent deprivation which is the worst aspect of poverty. 
Holly Walker 
: Is it a child’s fault if their parent cannot find work? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Hon Bill English in so far as he has any ministerial responsibility. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No. 
Holly Walker 
: Since children have the same basic needs regardless of the income status of their parents will he support the Green Party bill to replace the in-work tax credit with a payment for all children who need it and eliminate a blatant discrimination against some of our poorest children? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No we will not. In fact on the issue of discrimination this case has been to every tribunal it can go to and no one has found that the difference in payment is discriminatory. We will stick by the policy that has been in place for some time put in place by the previous Labour Government—that is maintaining the in-work tax credit. 
Holly Walker 
: Is his Government really committed to ensuring that every child thrives; if so will he take an investment approach to children like they have in the Netherlands where early investment in children saves billions of dollars and produces some of the best child outcomes in the OECD? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Yes we do believe that every child should thrive and we believe that we have about the right balance of fairness and incentive for households that are on low income where we would all like to see children face better prospects. I give some advice to the member though. I think that quoting examples from Europe may become less relevant as Europe starts dismantling their very generous systems that they have had in place because generally across Europe they cannot afford to maintain those systems. 
Holly Walker 
: I seek leave to table a report prepared by Rowe Davies Research for Every Child Counts released today entitled  
The Netherlands Study: Learning from the Netherlands to improve outcomes for New Zealand’s children 
. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 









Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
State-owned Energy Companies and Air New Zealand Sales—Parameters 
3. 
DAVID SHEARER (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by all his statements? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. For example I stand by the statement I made in the House on 24 May 2012 that “Seeing as it is a zero Budget and there is not a lot of money to spread around let me give some free advice to David Shearer: when David Cunliffe has a shave be worried because he is coming after you.” That was very good advice. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
David Shearer 
: Given his statement that “Mixed ownership will free up $5 billion to $7 billion which we can use to buy new assets … without having to borrow more from offshore lenders.” will he be revising the $5 billion to $7 billion figure in light of the changed circumstances of Solid Energy Might River Power Meridian Energy or Air New Zealand? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: No. 
David Shearer 
: Given that Bill English his finance Minister has said: “We would only take any of these companies to the market if they are in good shape for investment and Solid Energy right now certainly isn’t.” what impact will the delay and potential cancellation of the sale of Solid Energy have on his Government’s ability to deliver a balanced Budget? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: There may not be a delay. It has always been the Government’s view that this is a 3 to 5-year programme. It has always been the view that Solid Energy is likely to be the last cab off that rank because the energy companies are in better shape to go to the market. As the member might be aware Solid Energy is experiencing some issues at the moment because of the falling coal price but these things move around. 
David Shearer 
: Given the comment of John Palmer the Chairman of Air New Zealand that the disappointing share price for the company means that “there probably isn’t any particular urgency for the Crown to sell” what impact will that have on balancing the Budget? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: None. As I said it has always been a 3 to 5-year programme. The Government has always taken the view that it would look to maximise the return within reason. There has been nothing stopping the Government now that the mixed-ownership legislation has been passed from taking the portion of Air New Zealand that we could sell to the market but the Government has chosen not to do so solely because it believes that at some point it will get a better price for that. 
David Shearer 
: Will the negotiations between the Bluff aluminium smelter and Meridian Energy or the fact that Meridian Energy customer Norske Skog plans to halve production at its Kawerau mill have any impact on the value of Meridian Energy; if so how will that affect the balancing of the Budget? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: It is impossible for me to answer the question in relation to Meridian Energy and Rio Tinto because that is a commercial matter between the two companies. But they have longstanding contracts and in the past they have always seemed to be able to work those out. 
David Shearer 
: In light of the troubles around Solid Energy Mighty River Power Meridian Energy and Air New Zealand will he now bow to the overwhelming New Zealand public pressure to not sell our assets? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: No. 
Business Research and Development—2012 Technology Development Grant 
4. 
SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tamaki) 
 to the  
Minister of Science and Innovation 
: What investment is the Government making in innovative research and development? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Science and Innovation) 
: 
 Today the Government opened applications for the $45 million 2012 round of business research and development co-funding through the technology development grant. This investment is part of the Government’s plan to back business-led research and development by speeding up development of innovative products and services and getting them to market faster. Our leading high-tech businesses need to maintain their competitive edge in global markets especially in tough world economic times. This programme helps to take some of the risk out of research and development and encourages businesses to reach for more ambitious research and development goals by providing 20 percent co-funding of their research and development activity. 
Simon O’Connor 
: How does this investment from the Government contribute to the goals announced in yesterday’s  
Building Innovation 
 report? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The technology development grant programme opening today is just one part of our $115 million a year investment in TechNZ’s business co-funding research and development programmes. By co-funding additional business-led research and development in the New Zealand economy we achieve much more than we would if we just allowed firms to reclassify existing expenditure. Successful innovation improves competitiveness increases our economic output drives productivity growth and creates successful exports by introducing new or improved products. 
Superannuation Fund—Percentage of Assets in New Zealand 
5. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Has the New Zealand Superannuation Fund invested 40 percent of its assets in New Zealand; if not what was the percentage in 2008 and what is it now? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 The answer to the first question is no. It has not yet invested 40 percent of its assets in New Zealand. In 2008 and now the percentage depends a bit on how one measures it but if you exclude cash and include foreign exchange hedging the New Zealand investment has risen from $3.2 billion to $4.6 billion. On the same basis as a percentage of total investments it has increased from 26.6 percent to 28.6 percent. The Superannuation Fund has identified a number of New Zealand investment opportunities including I presume the Government share sale coming up but it will remain disciplined. 
Hon David Parker 
: Why is the proportion of the Superannuation Fund invested in New Zealand not much different from what it was in 2008 when a promise was made to lift that to 40 percent? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The member is misrepresenting the statements made at the time. If he wants the answer to that question he should go and ask the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. What I can tell the member is that the sale of Government shares in energy companies will assist in the process. 
Hon David Parker 
: Has he ever said the reason more of the Superannuation Fund was not invested in New Zealand was that the Government’s economic management had not created enough growth and investment opportunities? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: It is up to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund to make its own investment decisions. As the member will know that is how the legislation is structured. Government instruction to it would actually breach the law. 
Hon David Parker 
: Was he implementing his promise to invest 40 percent of the Superannuation Fund in New Zealand when he said on 13 August this year: “The Government is doing its bit by investing overseas through the Super Fund …”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: That was in the context of a discussion about—[ 
Interruption 
]—well if the member listens. The discussion was about the fact that New Zealand has compared with most other developed countries low outward investment. One of the significant outward investors is the New Zealand Superannuation Fund which according to its statutory requirements diversifies its investment around the world and therefore has a relatively low proportion of the total savings invested in New Zealand. Most of it is in fact invested offshore and that probably is increasing New Zealand’s outward investment. 
Hon David Parker 
: Which of these promises has he failed to deliver on: investing 40 percent of the Superannuation Fund in New Zealand closing the wage gap with Australia reducing income inequality or reducing unemployment? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: We have done at least two or three of those and made excellent progress on the others. 
Overseas Investment Rules—Confidence in Minister for Land Information 
6. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he have confidence in his Ministers; if so why? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes; because they are capable and hard-working Ministers. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: How can he have confidence in the Minister for Land Information when the Minister advised on the 7th of this month that the Overseas Investment Office had not completed its investigation into May Wang’s and Jack Chen’s illegal purchase of four farms when in fact the Overseas Investment Office concluded its investigation on 22 December 2010 a full 10 months before Miss Wang was charged in Hong Kong? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Because I take it it takes some time to work through those issues. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: How can he have confidence in the Minister when he and his department did not take legal action to get the four farms divested during the 10-month period when there was no stay on such action being taken as Mr Williamson in this House has claimed? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: For the member’s education the farms in question were bought illegally. No approval was sought or given by the Overseas Investment Office or the Minister for Land Information. The illegal purchases were discovered by the Government as part of another process and it is now going through a process to regularise that land. That has been held up because of the court case that has been taking place as I understand it in Hong Kong. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am asking the Prime Minister when there was a 10-month gap with no legal stay at all the reason being given to this House why legal action did not take place. I never have insinuated that the Minister approved these four deals. That is the reason why— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The member is seeking to debate the issue. I would really appreciate it if the member would actually look at his  
Hansard 
 and see what he actually asked and compare that with what he just said under his point of order he asked because they were different questions The question the member actually asked to the Prime Minister was how he has confidence in his Minister given a certain range of things. The question the member then said he actually asked was why did these things happen. Those are two different questions. If the member wants an answer to the question “Why did certain things happen?” then that is the question to ask not “How does the Prime Minister have confidence in the Minister …” because there are so many answers to that question. I want to be helpful to the right honourable gentleman because I have got no problem with the issue. I am not trying to protect any Minister from being accountable but the issue is the wording of questions. If the member asked the question he posed under his point of order that would I suspect get a different answer. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This was my question: “How can he have confidence in the Minister when he and his department did not take legal action to get the four farms divested during the 10-month period when there was no such stay on legal action being taken as Mr Williamson has claimed?”. It just needs a simple answer. Why did he not act when he could? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The problem is the question the member asked—that was the original question indeed—asked the Prime Minister why he has confidence or how he can have confidence in the Minister. It did not ask why the Minister did not act. There are two questions there. I am not wanting to be difficult but I cannot be unfair to the Prime Minister. I cannot say to the Prime Minister: “This is what the questioner really means. You must answer it that way.” The Prime Minister has to listen to the question and answer the question. The member in his point of order raised a different question which I suspect would have got a different answer. That is what I am trying to point out—that there is a way to ask the question but it is not “How can the Prime Minister have confidence in the Minister?’. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With respect the question is about his having confidence and I want to know why. That was the primary question—“if so why?”. We were told it is because he is competent and hard-working and I am just putting up a classic case of no action being taken by him or his department despite the assurances to the House in the past— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I am trying to be helpful because I do not want to deprive the member of his chance to ask legitimate questions. I fully accept that there are legitimate questions to be asked and the member has identified the two ways to ask the question in both the question asked and the point of order raised. The point of order in my view asked a different question. It asked why certain things did not happen and the member has got a right to know the answer to that question. It relates to the primary question. It relates to the answers given. I see no reason why the question should not be a legitimate supplementary question. But it is a different question from asking how the Prime Minister has confidence in the Minister because of certain alleged happenings. It is a different question. I can only ask the Prime Minister to answer the question asked and that is my dilemma. I am not trying to be difficult. I just cannot ask the Prime Minister to answer a question that he has not been asked. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Who asked the Prime Minister whether or not the Minister Mr Williamson had approved the four deals? I did not. No one else has done that. So why was that part of his answer? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! We are now though debating by way of point of order the way the Prime Minister has answered which is just not acceptable. It is totally outside the Standing Orders. The member I believe can question exactly the way he wants to; he has just got to word the question so that I can then require the Prime Minister to answer it. But I cannot ask the Prime Minister to answer because where a question is how the Prime Minister can have confidence in something there is a multitude of answers to that kind of question. I cannot tell the Prime Minister that he must answer it in this way because I have no power to do that. There is no way under the Standing Orders that I have the power to do that. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: On the question of his confidence does the Prime Minister accept that thus far Mr Williamson has not provided any reason why May Wang and Jack Chen were not and are not facing charges for their serious illegal actions where each offence is regarded as being so serious as to attract a $300000 fine? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: No. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: On the question of confidence what possible reason could there be for Mr Williamson and the Overseas Investment Office first not to take legal action against Miss Wang and her associates in the 10-month period back in 2010 when there was every opportunity to do so or second for Mr Williamson to advise the  
New Zealand Herald 
 as reported on the 16th of this month that May Wang and Jack Chen “will not face charges in New Zealand for breaching the Overseas Investment Act”? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Because as I said the farms were bought illegally without the knowledge of the Overseas Investment Office. At the time that was discovered by the Government it took some time to work out whether they in fact were illegally purchased or not. May Wang was for instance a New Zealand citizen at the time. So it took some time to work their way through it. When they were confident of that they took action. 
Schools Charter—Non-registered Teaching Staff 
7. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: How many of the 36 
 Person A Ministerial Inquiry 
 actions she has adopted will apply to non-registered teachers working in Partnership Schools? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education) 
: 
Tena koe Mr Speaker. Twenty-five actions or more could apply depending on the final contract let. Importantly every person in a partnership school will undergo extensive background and police checks. This includes all non-teaching and teaching unregistered and registered employees. 
Hon Nanaia Mahuta 
: Given that teachers in charter schools may not have to be registered how will any of the 11 actions relating to teacher registration with the Teachers Council help prevent sex offenders from being employed as teachers at charter schools? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: And that is why I said 25 or more of these actions will apply of the 36 depending on the final contract let. Regardless all employees no matter what their status will be subject to police vetting and extensive background checks. 
Hon Nanaia Mahuta 
: How will making information about teachers’ name changes available to schools through the Teachers Council register help prevent charter schools from hiring sex offenders given that charter school teachers will not necessarily even have to be listed on the Teachers Council register? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: Because we will specify in the contract when we are negotiating with charter schools how those checks and balances will be incorporated. 
Hon Nanaia Mahuta 
: Is she—[ 
Interruption 
]  
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I want to hear the question. 
Hon Nanaia Mahuta 
: Is she aware that teachers are police vetted every 3 years when they have to reregister and can she assure the House that non-registered teachers working in charter schools will also be police vetted every 3 years? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: Indeed they are often vetted more often than every 3 years and we will be expecting the same level of probity protection and safeguarding of all students in all schools. 
Hon Nanaia Mahuta 
: If there is no difference whatsoever in the vetting and background checks for non-registered charter school teachers why did officials warn the Minister last year that “There is the challenge of ensuring that students are not put at risk by mentors who are not necessarily subject to professional licensing.”? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: I think we need to distinguish between being unregistered and being unqualified because at the minute registration requires a registered person to hold a teaching qualification. We are talking about a whole range of other qualifications. At the moment in fact there is a whole number of people who are in teaching positions—early childhood educators volunteers teachers under the limited authority to teach tertiary educators trade course educators and staff at private training establishments—who are teaching but are not registered with the Teachers Council. 
Hon Nanaia Mahuta 
: I seek leave to table a document requested under the Official Information Act from the ministry stating its concerns regarding some of the risks involved in appointing non-registered teachers. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 









Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Transport Planning—Effect of Oil Prices 
8. 
JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: Will he reconsider the Government’s motorway projects in light of the impact that record high petrol prices may have on motorway usage; if not why not? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 No. Petrol prices do fluctuate and they do spike but that would be no basis to abandon an infrastructure programme that will deliver intergenerational positives for the economy and the environment. The inputs to pump price these days are somewhat different. It is noticeable that Z Energy is leading the way at the present time. Last weekend it had a supermarket deal arrangement that saw discounts of 10c a litre for a $100 spend up to 50c a litre for a $400 spend. It is clearly evident then that the pump price is an extremely irrational input into the consideration of strategic transport policy. 
Julie Anne Genter 
: Given that high oil prices and low economic growth have resulted in stagnant traffic volumes for more than 5 years now in New Zealand what evidence does he have that spending $12 billion on a few new motorways is the best way to move people and freight and get the economic outcomes that he wants? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I think it is unfair to say that traffic volumes have been stagnant when there are so many places around New Zealand where there is very significant congestion. Our view would be that not only would you be getting rid of that congestion by having better motorways but also you would save on the miles spent in journeys and the time that the engines are running which is very good for the environment. 
Julie Anne Genter 
: I seek leave to table for the benefit of the House the State highway traffic volume growth index from the New Zealand Transport Agency which shows clearly that there has been no growth in traffic volumes on State highways since 2004. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document from the New Zealand Transport Agency. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 









Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Julie Anne Genter 
: Does the Government’s motorway building programme not amount to a $12 billion bet that petrol prices will not continue to rise at 8 percent a year as they have for the past decade? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: No. The build is about getting better infrastructure for roading. Further I would say that there are a number of studies—the member as a transport economist would understand—that suggest that the price of petrol relative to decisions people make about transport modes is inelastic. 
Julie Anne Genter 
: So what specific evidence does the Minister have that shows that these motorways are the best value-for-money way to improve economic productivity? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: We are a very long way from the original question but what I would say is that where there is a reduction in congestion there is an economic positive—no question about that. If the member wants further proof that New Zealanders think these are good ideas she needs to look only at the electoral returns from 2011. 
Julie Anne Genter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not believe the Minister answered my question which was about the specific evidence—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I must hear the point of order in silence please. 
Julie Anne Genter 
: I do not believe that the Minister addressed the question which was very specific and it was about the specific evidence that shows that these projects are the best value-for-money way to improve economic performance and reduce congestion. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the Minister answered that he believed that they were and that was the evidence that he was basing the decision on. If the Minister having heard the point of order wishes to add anything further to it he is welcome to but if the Minister feels he—I do not think I can require the Minister to answer further. The member does have a further supplementary though. 
Julie Anne Genter 
: Does the Minister expect the economic impact of borrowing for these motorways to be similar to that in Greece which also borrowed billions to build new motorways over the past decade; if not why not? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: No. I think it is arguable as to whether the situation that arose in Greece was to do with its borrowing for roads so much as it was to do with its extraordinary borrowing for large monolithic rail networks. 
Julie Anne Genter 
: I seek leave to table this report from the European Commission. It is a strategic evaluation of transport investment priorities it is the final country report for Greece and it shows that it spent the vast majority of its money on motorways not on rail projects. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that European Commission document. Is there any objection? There is objection. Question No. 9 Dr Cam Calder. 
Dr Cam Calder 
: To the Minister of Health—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I apologise. Was there a supplementary question on question No. 8? [ 
Interruption 
] Order! I did not hear the member call; I will take the blame for that. 
Phil Twyford 
: Does he think that the $8 billion spent on public relations—sorry that should be $8 million spent—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I apologise to the member. Those of us who have not had a slip of the tongue should be the only ones able to cast the first stone. We all do that. 
Phil Twyford 
: It is very easy Mr Speaker to make that kind of mistake with the roads— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Let us just have the question. 
Phil Twyford 
: Does he think that the $8 million spent on public relations for the roads of national significance is enough to placate the millions of New Zealanders who are concerned about the cuts to public transport projects the flatlining of maintenance of local roads and State highways the underfunding of KiwiRail and the sheer waste of billions of dollars on the roads of national significance? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I completely reject the supposition that the member is basing his question upon. But what I would say is that over the last 24 months I have heard nothing from Labour members other than “spend more on communications” in a range of portfolio interests I currently have. What is more if that money had not been spent that member would be talking about a secret roading plan. 
Better Public Services Targets—Supporting Vulnerable Children Result Action Plan 
9. 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What commitments has the Government made as part of its action plan to support vulnerable children? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 The Government is committed to delivering better public services for vulnerable New Zealand children and this includes giving young New Zealanders a better start in life. The Prime Minister has set four challenges around vulnerable children and today Mrs Parata Ms Bennett and I announced more detail about how we are going to achieve these. Government agencies NGOs and Ministers are working together to increase participation in quality early childhood education build on our record infant immunisation rates reduce the incidence of rheumatic fever and reduce the number of children experiencing child abuse. 
Dr Cam Calder 
: How will the Government achieve these four targets? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: The Government has already begun. In the document that we released today it sets out a number of the actions that Ministers and their departments both individually and collectively will be taking. It is about making sure not only that the Public Service works well but also that the services at the ground level do. For example we are already seeing significant cooperation between those who are working in the rheumatic fever programme and social workers who then follow up to check with the families on issues of overcrowding and the need for home insulation. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: Can he confirm that the targets he reannounced today are all set beyond the 2014 election; if so how will Ministers be assessed on the newly minted Children Result Action Plan or C-R-A-P? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Gosh you certainly needed a university education for that joke did you not? If the member had read the report she would have seen that some of those result areas will be achieved well before the election and although the party opposite may think this is a joke—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I apologise to the Minister. I assume the question asked was serious. There was no way that members could hear the answer and that is unreasonable. We are not going to repeat the question on this occasion but I would ask the Minister to please just finish that answer again because I could not hear the last part of it at all. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: This Government takes the issue far more seriously than it appears that others do. What we are— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! [ 
Interruption 
] Order! I think we have had sufficient on that one. 
Health Minister—Statements 
10. 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Does he stand by all his recent statements on health? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Within the context they were given yes. I also stand by the fact that despite the world’s deteriorating international debt crisis we have invested almost $2 billion extra into health over our four Budgets. This huge investment is best put into perspective by the OECD’s latest report which reveals that while the average OECD nation had a nil increase in health spending New Zealand had the third-highest increase in health spending of 27 OECD nations in the latest year available. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: Given his statement to the House on 15 August 2012 regarding the number of nurses added to the health workforce since coming to office is he aware of a recent Massey University study that indicated that nearly half of the nurses surveyed were considering leaving because of distress caused by feeling that they cannot deliver the care they want to because of management pressure to reduce costs and does he recognise this as a crisis within the nursing workforce as the survey does? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I did see a report of that survey. I think our nurses work extremely hard and I am certainly very pleased to see the member acknowledge that we now have over 2000 extra nurses working in the public health service since the Government came to office in 2008. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: Given his statement of 16 August 2012 regarding additional elective surgical procedures achieved by district health boards which services is he happy to see the district health boards cut in the light of reported comments by the manager of surgical services at Nelson Marlborough District Health Board that it was not funded to do all its operations and had to find resources from elsewhere? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: It is true to say that many district health boards did more operations than were set in their health target. In fact the information that will be released with the health targets will indicate that district health boards put some of their own resources into achieving more operations. We have got to remember that the previous Government put more money into the health budget—doubled the health budget—and got fewer operations on a population basis. We are getting more operations for New Zealanders and actually we are getting them faster. I think people are very very happy with that achievement. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked which services the Minister would like to see cut given that there was underfunding for the surgical procedures that they achieved. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will allow the member to repeat her question but I will listen very carefully to the answer. I want to make sure that the Minister has not previously answered it. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: Given his statement of 16 August 2012 regarding additional elective surgical procedures achieved by district health boards which services is he happy to see district health boards cut in the light of the reported comments by the manager of surgical services at Nelson Marlborough District Health Board that it was not funded to do all the operations and had to find resources from elsewhere? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: It is up to district health boards to decide how they spend their budgets. What I can say is that the Nelson Marlborough District Health Board got $12 million extra last year on top of funding available for electives I understand. It also got an additional $12 million this year. So district health boards are getting more money providing more services have more doctors and have more nurses. Actually in the toughest economic times that a country has faced for generations that is a great service for patients from the New Zealand public health service and the John Key - led National Government. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: Given his statement of 15 August 2012 in respect of the Voluntary Bonding Scheme for doctors nurses and midwives in hard-to-staff regions can he confirm the statement of Rural Women New Zealand which said that the scheme has failed to attract any rural general practitioners and that the problem of access to general practitioners in rural areas is now urgent? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I do not agree with those comments because the Voluntary Bonding Scheme is beyond just doctors. I do not think we should have a health service that looks only at doctors. We have got many general practitioners who have enrolled in the scheme. A large number have applied and are being considered. We have also used the scheme to support additional midwives in rural areas. I think that it is working out very very successfully and the level of interest would indicate that. 
Housing New Zealand Corporation—Tenants’ Fraudulent Behaviour 
11. 
MIKE SABIN (National—Northland) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: What is Housing New Zealand doing to identify and address fraudulent behaviour by some tenants? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 An overwhelming majority of Housing New Zealand Corporation tenants appreciate their homes and abide by the rules. However there are a small minority committed to accessing homes and subsidies that they do not need. Since July 2011 312 tenancies have been ended following investigations and 120 tenants successfully prosecuted for fraud. There are a further 121 cases currently before the court and 594 under active investigation. I commend the Housing New Zealand Corporation for taking action so that families on our waiting list who truly are in genuine need have the home and support they require. 
Mike Sabin 
: What kinds of activities have tenants been undertaking that have led to action being taken against them? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: I will give two examples. They include an Auckland tenant who had over $100000 in a bank account for 7 years which he never declared. He is now a former tenant. He has been prosecuted and convicted and is now awaiting sentence. He has repaid the corporation $25000. A Dunedin tenant failed to declare her partner claimed income-related rent and operated an escort service from her tenancy. The tenancy was terminated by the corporation. The tenant was prosecuted for income-related rent fraud sentenced to 100 hours’ community work and 12 months’ supervision and has a Crown debt of $7500 established. 
Afghanistan—Safety of Provincial Reconstruction Team 
12. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: What assurances if any has he and the Minister of Defence received about the safety of the New Zealand Provincial Reconstruction Team in Afghanistan? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I have received assurances that our provincial reconstruction team is well trained has the best available equipment for the operating area in accordance with the judgment of the New Zealand Defence Force and has a full range of enabling support from our International Security Assistance Force partners. Having said that Governments past and present have been advised that Afghanistan poses risks and it is a very volatile environment. 
Iain Lees-Galloway 
: What additional efforts have been made to secure mine-resistant vehicles other than the request made to lease such vehicles from the United States? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: It is possibly worth putting a bit of context around what I think the member is asking. Back after the death of Tim O’Donnell a review was done about safety equipment and what might be best used. The Defence Force as I understand it in theatre had some discussions with the Americans about possible use of mine-resistant ambush protected vehicles. Those vehicles as it turned out were not available but post doing that there was a full review done of what would be the best equipment for our men and women in Afghanistan. They looked at amongst other things light armoured vehicles mine-resistant ambush protected vehicles and potentially other vehicles as well. The decision was made that on balance of all risks involved the best equipment was the light armoured vehicles for the conditions our men and women would face. 
Iain Lees-Galloway 
: Will the New Zealand provincial reconstruction team be required to carry out patrols in Baghlan Province without the use of mine-resistant vehicles given that American troops need special permission to use Humvees because of their vulnerability to improvised explosive devices? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: That is an operational matter for the New Zealand Defence Force. I will leave it to answer that. All I can say is that in whatever duties that are undertaken by our men and women in Afghanistan they do so with the New Zealand Defence Force making sure that it takes into consideration at all times providing the maximum safety and security it can within the context of a war zone. I would also make the point that at no time since we have been the Government has there ever been a request from the New Zealand Defence Force for equipment for our people in Afghanistan that has been declined. 
Richard Prosser 
: Can the Government give an assurance to the public that an emergency exit plan is in place for our forces in Afghanistan? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I am not sure I understand fully what the member means by an emergency exit plan. What I can give the member an assurance of is that the New Zealand Defence Force will be looking at the transition process as we look to leave Afghanistan very carefully. It will work on making sure that we provide the safest exit for our people but I would just simply hasten to add that it is a dangerous environment and represents one of the more dangerous parts of the operation of the provincial reconstruction team since we have been there in 2003. 
Richard Prosser 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was about an emergency exit plan not about the plan for the existing exit. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Prime Minister in his answer said he was not sure what the member meant by an emergency exit plan if I heard the Prime Minister correctly. If he is not sure what the member means he cannot answer further. Unfortunately the member does not have any more supplementary questions today but it would have warranted a further supplementary question under normal circumstances. 
Iain Lees-Galloway 
: Why did he announce 2 weeks ago that the New Zealand provincial reconstruction team would commence patrolling in Baghlan Province signalling that intention to opposing forces when he did not have what the Minister of Defence calls a clear understanding of the roles defence personnel would be doing? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I reject that proposition. 
General Debate 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Building and Construction) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. I have to say that in all of my 25 years in this Parliament I have never experienced a time when the accusation of being on “Planet Labour” has such relevance. 
In 2008 as we went to the general election and the world was facing prosperity and growth for all a whole range of things were committed by all political parties—by the National Party and by Labour. We got elected at the end of that year and suddenly something called the global financial crisis crossed across the whole world. I can tell you that a number of countries across the world have gone into the absolute depths of depression and have gone into areas where they are almost bankrupt. We see them daily in the news places in Europe like Greece and Spain and Portugal. But the Labour Party here keeps going back to “How come National said when it was standing in 2008 it would deliver the following?”. That is why the accusation is that you must be living on “Planet Labour” because on “Planet Labour” the global financial crisis just did not happen. On “Planet Labour” the earthquakes in Canterbury just did not happen. So we should all be in this beautiful world of peace and prosperity and the rest of the world is all booming. 
Well even in total regards to all of what has happened to the world I have to say the track record of what this Government has delivered over the last 3½ years or so has been outstanding. The rest of the world has nearly all been sentenced to life imprisonment and relatively speaking this nation has got away with a couple of weeks of periodic detention. Quite seriously it has got away with almost no damage at all. In fact in many cases this country has been growing has been expanding and has been doing better than anyone could have predicted. 
Members of our team today in the general debate will be picking up on things like the fantastic delivery that we have had within the health sector. Daily Tony Ryall almost does not get enough time—in fact we feel like we want to move extensions of time—to tell members of this House and the country how many more surgical operations are being delivered across the country. It is nothing short of outstanding and that is while we have had to use tight and in many cases zero budget increases. It is an outstanding testimony to what he has done. 
Other members of our team will cover things like the outstanding record in law in order where I notice huge drops in the crime rate—a 15-year low in the crime rate. Again how else could you want for better at a time when you think everything is tight financially and people are struggling? It is often the time when you will see more offending but no not under this Government. If you look at the outstanding results in the education field in the early education field they are just spectacular. 
But I want to concentrate for my few minutes that I get today on just a few things about the economy because I think the economy is the central driver of all those other achievements. The first thing I want to do is ask are New Zealanders actually better off or are they worse off? Well let me give you the answer. The after-tax average wage has gone up by 20 percent since 2008. The average tax the average tax wage— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: After tax. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: —after-tax wage is up by 20 percent since 2008. That is spectacular. In fact my favourite my personal favourite is this one: three-quarters of all income earners in New Zealand pay no more than 17.5 percent tax. Three-quarters of all income earners pay no more than that. That is my personal favourite. But wait there is more. There is a lot more. New Zealand has the lowest inflation since 1999 meaning that the everyday cost of living is increasing at the slowest rate that it has ever done in the last 12 years. That is an outstanding result. 
Interest rates—look at this—are at their lowest in 45 years. Do you know what that means? That means for just an ordinary family with a $200000 mortgage they are paying around about $200 a week less in interest than they would have been and it would be a lot more than $200 if that lot were in control. 
My colleague Steven Joyce gave me a little road test I think it is called. The Labour Party has released the road test for the economy. It has come out with what is called Labour’s solutions and I really do not want to promote the Labour Party too much although it does need it. But I would love to go through— 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I move an extension of time so Maurice Williamson can tell us about May Wang and Jack Chen. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is the member seeking leave for an extension? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Yes. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is being sought for the member to have an extension of time. Is there any objection? 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: You can’t seek leave for someone else. It’s a longstanding tradition. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: OK I apologise. The member is quite correct. I should not have done that. I apologise to the House for that. I did not want to be unhelpful to the right honourable gentleman though. 
DAVID SHEARER (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 Well that was Maurice Williamson’s long list of excuses as to why this economy is going down the tubes. You know Mr Williamson this country has experienced under this Government the worst economic growth since World War II. More than under any other Government since World War II—Labour or National—it is by far the worst. What we see Mr Williamson is 53000 people every year going to Australia because there is no hope in this country. The figures that came out just 2 days ago show that that rate is still increasing. Just imagine what our unemployment figures would be if we did not have the safety valve of the Tasman crossing. In the last 3 years 150000 people have crossed over. If you added that to our unemployment figures today we would be in triple figures almost in terms of unemployment. This Government does not offer any real hope for New Zealanders and that is why they are leaving. 
As I go around the country and I am speaking to people the one thing that I hear from people talking to me—and it is a recurring thing—is the lack of confidence they have in this Government in education. Our education system in New Zealand is one of the best in the world. You look at the statistics around the globe and we are consistently in the top 10 for reading for numeracy and for science. Yet this Government is determined to undermine that. Let us look at some of the mishaps we have had—if we want to call them that—over the last few weeks. The quality of teachers—actually we agree with the Government on this. Quality of teachers is really important and we have very good quality teachers. But you do not raise classroom sizes just to fund the quality of our teachers or increase the quality of teachers. The amazing thing about that is that this Government still believes that actually raising classroom sizes is a good thing. The reality of this is that it just felt it did not sell it well enough. It is not the fact that the whole proposition is completely wrong; it just did not sell it enough. 
The Government has stripped $60 million out of teacher support and in-service training. It has done that over the last 3 years but we are still not seeing alternative proposals or any sort of policies put up to further its claim that what we need to do is increase the quality of teachers. Instead what we have got is a series of ad hoc gimmicks around the area of education. The latest is charter schools. After we heard from this Government about the quality of teachers charter schools are going to be allowed to exist without teachers having qualifications. They do not actually need qualifications to be in charter schools. They do not need to have any training. It is extraordinary. Now you could have teachers in the “Maharishi Yoga School of”—whatever—“Transcendental Meditation” setting up some sort of school and they do not need to have classroom teachers. They could teach creationism or whatever Mr Banks would love them to teach. They do not have to teach to the curriculum. For God’s sake why do we have a curriculum? But what they can do is they can make a profit. They can take the taxpayers’ money and make a profit out of it. Well is that not just great—a profit-making charter school that does not have to be absolutely accountable to anybody and that is supposed to raise our education standards. 
The other day I went along to one of my local schools and I was speaking to the principal there. The principal said to me: “The number of children who come along to our school who have an English comprehension age of a 3-year-old is overwhelming.” Yet at year 6 when they leave that school they are all up to speed of where they should be. Do you know the interesting thing about that? The interesting thing about that school is that if you measure that school at year 4 it would be a failure under national standards. This is a school that is taking kids and taking them through 8 years in the space of 6 yet it is going to be branded as a failure. Those kids are going to be branded as failures and the teachers are going to be branded as failures yet it is a fantastic school in my electorate. Thank you. 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
: 
 As a backbencher one could be forgiven for being a bit apprehensive at having to stand and speak so soon after the Leader of the Opposition. Then I realised I have been here longer than him; I am in my second term. All I can say is that that was a desperate speech from an invisible man who has disappointed almost everybody in this country except for Goliath and the other Davids in the Labour Party. I saw a glint in David Cunliffe’s eye. He is ready for another shave so soon tomorrow morning. You see the Leader of the Opposition and his party are out of touch. 
On this side of the House we are focusing on what matters for New Zealanders and on the big picture: building a more competitive and productive economy—one of the four main priorities we have set in this term of the Government. What are we going to do in this area? It is so important that we focus on the things that will help New Zealanders do more for themselves. We have said that over the next 4 years as you have heard today in this House from our Deputy Prime Minister there will be $8 billion dollars of spending on infrastructure in New Zealand—$8 billion of infrastructure spending that will help us become more competitive help us become more productive and help our businesses do more for an exporting country. We have said we want to focus on and spend more on research and development and science and innovation. The Budget delivered this year will give us $385 million of extra spending on science and innovation over the next 4 years. By 2015-16 $1.3 billion every year will be spent by this Government on research and development and science and innovation. We are focusing to double the business spend on research and development to 1 percent of GDP over that period of time as well. 
What will that do for us in this country? This will be focused spending on research and development and infrastructure not money thrown around willy-nilly as we saw over 9 years of a Labour Government but focused on the important parts of our economy where New Zealanders can expect a return and where New Zealanders can expect bang for their taxpayer bucks. This is going to be important to a number of areas in my electorate and other electorates around the country in forestry in dairy in agriculture and in geothermal. 
Forestry is very important to our economy. We produce more trees than many other parts of the world. These trees that are grown produce jobs and are the backbone of many of our provincial areas and their economy. In my electorate we have an organisation called Scion. It is at the cutting edge of some of the work that is done around this research and development. It is doing a fantastic job on our behalf and as a member of the Government I am proud that we are backing them to do so much more in forestry in dairy in agriculture and in geothermal. I want to repeat that—$1.3 billion of taxpayers’ spend that the Government will put in place by the year 2015-16. 
If we focus on infrastructure—we are talking about roads and we are talking about building productivity and competitiveness which returns more for our exporters—what will this do? It will mean jobs investment and growth. In the Bay of Plenty where we grow more trees than in many other parts of New Zealand where we have hard-working farmers dairy farmers and we have others who produce things to export—and we have excellent MPs every single one of them that is right; every single one of them is a hard-working elected constituent MP—we have a road of national significance. I call it the Te Puke bypass; others call it the Tauranga direct road. What it does is it links the provinces to a port. It is a 23-kilometre four-lane highway from Paengaroa in my electorate to the electorate of Tony Ryall and to Te Maunga in the electorate of the hard-working Minister Simon Bridges. The $567 million for that road in 2015 costs will produce a return— 
Sue Moroney 
: What a waste. 
TODD McCLAY 
: The member opposite says what a waste. “What a waste.” she said. The return journey will be reduced by 24 minutes. The road was started in 2011. It will be finished by 2016. What that means—to the member opposite who occasionally shows up in the Bay of Plenty and who says what a waste of money—is that all of the things that we produce all of those trees all of those other things will be delivered to our port more quickly so that those businesses can be more productive so that they can sell them overseas and be more competitive. They will reinvest that money in jobs. I say to that member opposite who lives somewhere near Hamilton who has no idea about this important road in the Bay of Plenty and backing the people of the Bay of Plenty that this is a Government focused on the big picture. 
Hon JOHN BANKS (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 In the 30th Parliament we had Bill Rowling as the Leader of the Opposition. In the 40th Parliament we have got David Shearer as the Leader of the Opposition. Bill Rowling was so good that he was knighted for services to the National Party! In those days we had a powerful Labour front bench. I sat there and we had a powerful Labour front bench. Today the Labour Party is led by the weakest leader of this Parliament in 10 Parliaments since the heady days of the ruthless cut-through Wallace Rowling from down in Nelson. That is a statement of fact. Now we have got jokers on that side of the House in the 40th Parliament who want to be the leader. This side of the House does not care whether David Shearer is the leader or “Bill Cunliffe” is the leader. They are both as bad as one another. Labour has got no plan for the economic security of this country. It is the poorest leadership it is the poorest focused and it is the poorest performing Labour Opposition this Parliament has had in my parliamentary lifetime which is 10 Parliaments. 
I want to say to the Leader of the Opposition who I think is still at this very moment of time the hapless David Shearer that partnership schools will give an opportunity to the 20 percent of young New Zealanders who are out of school out of training out of work and out of hope. Why would the Labour Opposition in the 40th Parliament be opposed to that? Can anyone on this side of the House tell me? Why would it be opposed to that? Any idea? No idea. Why would it be opposed to giving young people hope? Why would it be opposed to giving young people opportunity? Why would it be opposed to giving young people the dignity of work? What would the Labour Party do? Let me quote from Joel Klein. The Labour Opposition in this 40th Parliament might learn something if its members obey Speakers’ rulings—on page 62 of  
Speakers’ Rulings 
—and listen and breathe through their noses. This is the proposition: “I remain convinced that the best cure for poverty is a good education. And I’m equally convinced that pointing to poverty as an excuse for why we fail to properly educate poor kids only serves to condemn more of them to lives of poverty.” 
These people in the 40th Parliament on the Opposition benches want to consign 20 percent of our young people to poverty helplessness and hopelessness without the dignity of work. This is what Joel Klein also said: “I say to”—[ 
Interruption 
] Listen to this. This is very important. Listen to this and do not forget page 60 of  
Speakers’ Rulings 
: I say to the “status-quo poverty-is-destiny crowd”—[ 
Interruption 
] Listen to that. I say to the “status-quo poverty-is-destiny crowd” that that is what the Opposition members stand for: poverty is destiny. We say that poverty is wrong. We say poverty is young kids out of school out of work out of hope and out of dignity. We are going to give them the opportunity to engage. So I say to the “status-quo poverty-is-destiny crowd” that with your support partnership schools will make a difference where it is most needed. 
Partnership schools will make a difference where it is most needed. Even the Greens know that 20 percent of our kids have been written off. The Greens even know that partnership schools can work because a proposition around partnership schools is already in place across the country. But in this 40th Parliament with the weakest leadership of the Opposition with the weakest front bench the Opposition has had in the 10 Parliaments I have been here Opposition members have got no idea. They have abandoned hope for the young. They have written off 20 percent. They will not support a proposition that has worked all over the world. We say to them: get real or stay there for the 50th Parliament and I will be back in the 50th Parliament to see that you are still there. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The level of interjection has got too high. I did not want to interrupt the honourable member’s speech but a continuous barrage of sound is just not acceptable. 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 The crowd over there are shouting their heads off. Why? Because they do not want this country to hear the good news about John Key and the jobs he is creating. That is what is going on. I was in my electorate in the Wairarapa on Monday carting around a Russian. He was Russia’s equivalent of David Frost. His name was Sergey Brilev. I took him to Cameron Stuart’s dairy farm in Te Ore Ore near Masterton. As Sergey was watching 700 cows being milked by one man I said to Cam: “What do you think of this bugger Key? Do you think he’s doing a decent job?”. Cam responded: “John he is brilliant. I voted for him and I’m going to vote for him again. Why? Because he knows what he is doing. He is managing this country astutely. He is fiscally savvy John. We are going to vote for him because he’s creating jobs.” 
Why would anybody leave this country? Why are people saying that 50000 people are leaving this country? Because they can see this Opposition and they think: “What a pack of losers. Why would you stay here for that carry-on?”. 
John Key is about creating jobs. That is what he is doing and he is doing it in my electorate. He has created fiscal responsibility in Government. If I think about somewhere like Dannevirke I recall that under Helen Clark’s administration the Oringi meatworks closed down. It lost all its workers. Well along came Allan Benbow from Metalform in Dannevirke and now there are 100 employees in that plant and they are doing all manner of things. What is more Benbow and his company Metalform manufacture in Dannevirke—the manufacturing capital of the southern hemisphere—and have built over 1000 wheelchairs which they have exported to the States for US$25000 each. 
Under Helen Clark what happened in Norsewood in our area? We had a sock and jersey - making factory. What happened under Helen Clark? It closed and jobs were lost. What has happened under John Key? Norsewear is producing again it is back up making socks and it has 10 employees. Why is that? Because John Key and Bill English are doing a really good job. Why will people stay in this country? Because we have good public services. 
When I became a member of Parliament in 2005 30 percent of the constituents who came to my office in Masterton were complaining about the lack of health services. What has Tony Ryall done? I do not get one such visit a year now because Tony Ryall and the local district health board chief Bob Francis are doing a superb job along with Leanne Southey. They are creating an environment where really good services are being provided to the Masterton community. 
I see what is going on in areas like Greytown where I live where under Helen Clark the Bouzaid and Ballaben factory closed. What has happened now? Under the leadership of John Key and the financial situation he has created we have now got ourselves a new supermarket employing 50 people. That is 50 new jobs. 
Why are people wanting to work and come off benefits in this country? I will tell you why. It is because the after-tax wage is up 20 percent since 2008. We have the lowest inflation rate 1.3 percent since 1999 meaning that the everyday cost of living is going up more slowly—the slowest rate in 12 years. Interest rates as my colleague Maurice Williamson said are the lowest in 45 years. People are paying off their mortgages. Under John Key we have moved from spending $1.10 for every dollar earned which was the inheritance from Helen Clark and her colleagues. What are we spending now? We are spending 98c for every dollar earned. People are saving. They are paying off their mortgages. 
We have created 60000 new jobs in this economy in the past 2 years. Three-quarters of income earners are paying no more than 17.5 percent tax. Speaking of tax do we remember Labour back in 2009 and that fellow Nash its spokesperson on finance at the time saying that dairy farmers paid no more tax than pensioners? Well what use was that comment? It got Labour voted out of office. 
I am very proud to get up and stand to support this John Key Government. He is doing a superb job for the people of the Wairarapa. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) 
: 
 That was John Hayes the member for Wairarapa. If there are 60000 jobs and he has his way everyone will be making socks but he will need more socks than those that are manufactured in Wairarapa to address the burgeoning unemployment problem. National has done nothing to solve unemployment. It must do more especially in the provinces and that member knows it. 
It was laughable to listen to John Banks earlier as he criticised this side of the House. Well I tell you what: I would have this front bench any day than a member who has resigned himself to a one-member party. Under the MMP review he is gone. Even if the threshold is lowered to 3 percent or 2 percent he is gone. The comments coming from that member saying that partnership schools will benefit the 20 percent of young people who are currently not achieving in the system are laughable. Parents out there are holding meetings because they are concerned at the way in which National is systematically destroying our education system and that is a concern to us. We know that charter schools will not make a difference. In fact in 2009 Stanford University did a comprehensive report of about 16 schools across the states of the USA and it showed that the outcomes in terms of education for minority and indigenous groups are variable. It does require significant private investment. Attrition has its place in terms of why some charter schools are doing better than others. The deliberate cherry-picking of some students to lift the performance value and outcome from those schools also has its place so to bring that type of a model into the New Zealand system is absolutely a disgrace. 
It will destroy what is at the heart of a high-performing New Zealand education system which is one that delivers to kids based on the expectations sent to parents. That is a very important point that I want to stress. The way that National is going it is driving a steam train right through the middle of our education system and undermining the things that really work. We need schools in New Zealand to be self-managing schools. International evidence shows that why we are presenting in the higher quartile of the OECD charts is because we have self-managing schools. Parents and communities are involved in setting the expectations of outcomes for their young people. They are involved in ensuring that the type of education is relevant to their children at a very local and personal level so that they can monitor and work with schools to deliver those outcomes. It is the truth that sadly too many young people are not achieving in our education system but charter schools are not the solution. 
 All charter schools will do is privatise the profits and socialise the loss—privatise the profits and socialise the loss. We need to be concerned if the six applicants sitting on the table right now come from private companies which have a long track record of privatising the profits and socialising the loss. Members across the House know this. They know that at the meetings held in their communities in South Auckland west Auckland and Christchurch and continuing throughout the whole country parents are concerned because what they do not want put at risk is the quality public education system where every child no matter what their circumstance has the opportunity to succeed in any school throughout this country and we back them. We back those parents because we believe every school should be a good school. 
We believe that the teachers in front of our children should be registered unlike National. Through its charter school model it is saying “Actually we don’t need registered teachers in front of our children.” In fact there is a difference between qualified teachers and registered teachers. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: There is. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA 
: If there is then I challenge that member the member for Tauranga to take the next call and stand up and explain to the good members of Tauranga what that difference is based on the recommendations coming out of the Government with regard to giving greater protection around children and strengthening the regulatory process so that sex offenders are not in front of our children. I challenge the member for Tauranga to get up take the next call and explain to the people of Tauranga what the difference is. We think there should be registered teachers in charter schools. We think that if that Government wants to run that particular line then it should be a uniform standard. 
But on balance actually we do not need charter schools. On balance we should be putting all our effort into strengthening the public education system. Parents are also concerned because they were told by National that parents deserve really good data about the performance of their young people. What do they get? A variable set of data coming out of national standards and being put up on a website with the Minister herself acknowledging that that data is inaccurate. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I am delighted to speak in this general debate and I am absolutely proud to be part of a National-led Government that is getting on with the job of building a brighter future for New Zealand. We are not being distracted by sideshows. 
I want to spend some time just talking about some really exciting health initiatives that have been happening in the health sector and one in particular that began in Mount Roskill in my first term in Parliament. A group of migrant doctors predominantly refugee doctors had been meeting at one of the NGO groups in Three Kings for some years. It was like a support group really. They were frustrated that they could not get any support for a bridging programme. They wanted to get recognised and registered with the Medical Council of New Zealand but were really frustrated in their attempts to get support. That was until I got involved and I got Tony Ryall involved when he became the Minister of Health. He sympathised with their plight and he supported them. Health Workforce New Zealand got involved and the rest is history as they say. 
Colleagues NZREX is the Medical Council’s registration exam that every foreign doctor has to sit if they cannot get registered by any other route. The NZREX preparation programme began in April 2011. There have been three intakes of up to about 10 foreign doctors each 
There was an example given to me of a woman who came to New Zealand from Russia 12 years ago. She had married a New Zealander and had permanent residency. She had a son. At that time in her life she did not feel she could go through the registration process so she trained as a nurse and qualified but never ever gave up her dream of practising as a doctor. She heard about the NZREX programme and was accepted into it. 
She left her family for 3 months to work at Auckland City Hospital. Her days began at 8 a.m. and ended at 5 p.m. and that left the evenings for studying. She learnt about the Kiwi-orientated patient approach. Actors were involved in role playing. She passed successfully at the end of 3 months and is now practising as a doctor. Of the 10 on the intake of which she was one nine passed that exam and the 10th person eventually passed a few months later. So 10 out of 10 passed. That was a hugely successful intake as have been the other successive intakes. Of those 10 students two were from China three were from Iraq two were from Sri Lanka one was from India one was from Fiji and of course this lady was from Russia. It was a win-win for all and it is particularly successful. We are a multicultural nation and our health workforce needs to represent the community that it serves. 
Another huge and exciting scheme which I think has been successful is the Voluntary Bonding Scheme which was set up in the last term. It has been going for 3 years. That has been phenomenally successful. There has been a total of 2300 health graduates who have been accepted on to this scheme and they have come from all over New Zealand. This year we have accepted 510 health graduates. They are not all doctors. There are 43 doctors 42 midwives 411 nurses 13 radiation therapists and one medical physicist. It is about keeping our graduates in New Zealand—that is what it is about. 
The Rural Medical Immersion Scheme is also proving successful. It is keeping our graduates in New Zealand. We know that if graduates work in hard-to-staff areas and settle in there they will stay there and that is what it is all about. It has been hugely successful and I am grateful that the Minister of Health has had the vision to implement that type of programme. 
I am particularly pleased to see the patient cancer pathway improved for patients in New Zealand. We want to ensure that they receive good quality treatment that is timely. There have been four key areas that have been worked on. The first one is cancer wait indicators. Audits have shown that waiting times on the cancer patient pathway were very variable and the different measurements are now being recorded. Let us face it. We know that when measurements are recorded and they are published people step up. They start talking to their colleagues asking: “How can we achieve this target?”. And guess what? It happens. That is what cancer wait-time indicators will do. 
There has been work done on tumour standards which is about getting the best-practice services across New Zealand. There are about eight tumour standards. They include bowel breast gynaecological and melanoma to name some of them. There is an improvement in multidisciplinary meetings and that is key to providing excellent care for patients having cancer treatment. But the best news of all to me is the introduction of patient pathway cancer co-ordinators. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 One of the highlights of this debate so far has to be the bizarre contribution from John Banks which we heard before. When he has not got amnesia he is becoming a soothsayer. He confidently predicted that David Shearer would be the Leader of the Opposition in the 50th Parliament. Well I have got news for John Banks: this is the 50th Parliament. This is actually the 50th Parliament so he might well be right but I think even more telling was his very confident prediction that he John Banks would be back in the 50th Parliament as an MP. I think he knows that he is toast at the next election because all he could be confident about was that he would be present in the 50th Parliament. That is the one we have got right now so there is a bit of news for John Banks. 
The other bit of news for John Banks is a picture that I think tells us everything we need to know about charter schools. It is doing the rounds on Facebook at the moment. It has got a picture of John Banks on it and it says “Charter schools: one rich white man wants to set up schools for poor brown kids to make a profit for his friends”. I think that is all we need to know about charter schools. That is exactly what it is and that National Party is backing him all the way. That is the agenda of John Banks. He is interested just in his mates making a profit out of our education system. This is nothing to do with improving achievement in education. If it was to do with improving achievement in education then that Government would want the best-quality teachers in front of every classroom in the land. What we know is that what that Government really wants to do is have unqualified staff—I am not going to even call them teachers actually—in charter schools. If they are not qualified to teach they are not teachers. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Yes they are. 
SUE MORONEY 
: They are not teachers if they are not qualified to teach. This idea that any old person can get up understand the art and the magic of teaching and actually improve successful educational outcomes for our children lives only over there on the Government benches. Every parent up and down the country knows that this Government is completely out of touch with what is required for improving the quality of our education system. 
When it comes to arguing for better-quality education then the arguments for that opinion are to be found on the Labour benches—not on the National Party benches. We know that deep down in their hearts those members want to increase class sizes. That is their big answer to improving the quality of our education. They want to increase class sizes but only after they have dumbed down the teaching profession. They started it in early childhood education. That is where they started. They cut the funding for qualified teachers in early childhood education. They started dropping the standards at the very beginning for the youngest children who need it the most. That is where they started. They did that in 2010. They think they are pretty clever because they got away with that. But parents up and down the country were not prepared to let them get away with that ridiculous idea that somehow increasing the number of children in a class causing their teacher to have many more interactions with many more children would actually be better for all of our children. 
They are the only ones who believe that. They still believe it—they still do believe it. I think the blank faces opposite tell me everything I need to know: they think they just got the sell job wrong on it actually. They still believe that increasing the number of children in the classes of our primary intermediate and secondary schools will somehow improve the quality of education. That is a nonsense. They are now completely exposed on the nonsense about what they think about education. To them it is all about cost. They see education as a cost. Here in the Labour Party we know that education is an investment and not any old investment but one of the best investments that any Government can make in the future of its country. It is absolutely clear because of that Government’s poor performance in education that its members do regard it as a cost to be contained not an opportunity to be invested in. 
They also misled the public on their intentions around league tables. What was their former Minister of Education saying before the election last year? Anne Tolley said: “I want to make it very clear to the member that the Ministry of Education will not be publishing league tables. I will say that again to the member: the ministry will not be publishing league tables.” 
Hon Anne Tolley 
: That’s right. 
SUE MORONEY 
: That was Anne Tolley. She is just agreeing that she said exactly that. What is the Government planning to do now but publish league tables? 
SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 What a pleasure what an honour what a terrific thing it is to be able to stand here today in this general debate as part of the John Key Government which is getting on with the job for New Zealand and for New Zealanders. And what a pleasure what a privilege what an honour it is to be the member for Coromandel because in my part of the world in Coromandel where the previous speaker Sue Moroney occasionally visits her holiday home—we see her occasionally passing through—the people of Coromandel are enjoying the benefits and privileges that come from having a Government that is focused on getting the economy right. 
It has been a wet damp miserable winter in parts of Coromandel. In fact there has been an awful lot of rain about but the businesses and the farmers of Coromandel are getting ready for spring and they are getting ready for a prosperous and bright summer. Part of that will be to make the most of the new wonderful Hauraki Rail Trail cycleway. I had the very good opportunity to spend some time with the Associate Minister of Tourism Chris Tremain earlier this year when we opened that cycleway. It runs from Kopu through to Waikino on to Waihi and then down through to Paeroa and Te Aroha. As I left Thames earlier this week I could see that the concrete was being poured on the way into Thames township. What a great thing that will be because it brings jobs and opportunity to a part of the world that needs jobs and opportunity. And it is going to be used not only by hundreds of local Coromandel people but by families children and visitors from all over New Zealand and all over the world.  
I know that the projections are that there will be something like 52000 people a year using that cycleway and already without having had the first summer usage is twice what was expected. So in towns like Te Aroha Paeroa and Waihi businesses are already getting the benefit of visitors spending buying food wine coffee and what have you but also they are staying overnight. It is just a terrific opportunity because in Otago where the cycleway has of course being going for a lot longer it has something like 20000 people a year using it— 
Jacqui Dean 
: $7 million. 
SCOTT SIMPSON 
: —and it is worth $7 million a year. So if we have 52000 people imagine what that is worth to the people of Coromandel. 
You know the local shopkeepers and cafe owners are already saying that business is up business is booming and that people are buying their coffees muffins and what have you. Indeed just the other day I had a terrific email. It was actually addressed to the Prime Minister and I was kindly copied in by a constituent. It said this sort of thing: “A group of 20 of us from Whangamata recently did the Waikino to Paeroa trail. We stopped for morning tea at Waikino at the train station and then we went on to Te Aroha where we stayed overnight.” Twenty people staying overnight in Te Aroha—that is a big deal for the local moteliers. They had a meal and then they cycled back the next day after having brunch. He says in his email: “Later this year a group of us are also planning to ride the Timber Trail.” So people are getting out and around and about and doing this stuff on the national cycleway. It is a great thing.  
There is also other innovation. I want to just wind up by saying that Dr Simon McDonald at Triodent in Katikati runs a terrific business employing 80 people. This is a business that is only 8 years old that is exporting $20 million a year—export dollars—and making wonderful high tech products used in the dental industry. They are little things. If you have had any crown work done on your teeth you would know about how expensive that is. I held in my hand when I visited his factory just a week or two ago 2000 units in a small little box. I held 2000 of them something like $200000 worth of export dollars in my hand and not a single 40-foot container in sight—not a single 40-foot container. That is smart innovative thinking. That is smart innovative manufacturing going on in Katikati in the Coromandel electorate as we speak. It is a business that is niche that is taking its product to the world and that can compete against international competitors because it is smart innovative and very talented. And what do 80 jobs mean to a town like Katikati? Well they mean opportunity they mean school rolls go up they mean businesses are thriving and they mean the cafes and restaurants are doing well. 
Those are just a couple of the wonderful tangible examples of what is happening under a John Key - National Party Government which I commend to this House. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 New Zealand has faced some major blows in recent years whether it is the earthquakes in Christchurch or the Pike River mine disaster. These events I think have perhaps seen many of us take the focus off the events in Afghanistan and New Zealand’s longstanding commitment to the events in Afghanistan. This is not just a New Zealand phenomena; it has actually been happening in the United States as well. 
However the recent tragic events mean that we must once again look at what we are doing in Afghanistan and how our military serving in Bamian Province can be brought home safely. Many other parliaments debate these kinds of military deployments on a regular basis—the German Parliament debates it every year. So we think it is important that New Zealand should have this debate. We were very disappointed that the Government blocked having a debate on this issue yesterday and that the Speaker did not give an urgent debate on this issue yesterday. We think this Parliament should be debating this issue. 
I want to make it clear from the outset that we consider that the current provincial reconstruction deployment should be the last. It should come to an end. The provincial reconstruction team’s deployment in Bamian is easily New Zealand’s most significant and dangerous overseas deployment since Viet Nam. Now is the time we believe for the Government to signal an end to our involvement in the Afghanistan war immediately and withdraw our troops as soon as possible. The ongoing loss of New Zealand life is too high a price to pay for a war we cannot influence and where the situation for our troops is increasingly dangerous. 
The role of the New Zealand force is no longer focused on simply reconstructing local communities and building schools but rather on patrolling a dangerous part of the country where our troops are being increasingly drawn into counter-insurgency operations that pose more dangers to them. New Zealand has had an active commitment in Afghanistan since 2001 so withdrawing our troops over a decade later is therefore in no sense cutting and running as some members of the Government have suggested. We New Zealand have made a significant commitment but the Green Party believes that the price now is too high to stay. The overall situation in Afghanistan is beyond our control and sending more New Zealand soldiers to the north-east of Bamian Province in particular at this time is indefensible and too dangerous. 
The Government has signalled an end to our commitment next year. I understand it has reached an agreement with the US Government to end in April. This is simply bringing forward the end date that was previously announced but the Greens believe we should bring it forward further. Of course we would not be the only country making that decision to bring forward our withdrawal from Afghanistan. The Netherlands withdrew in 2010; it now has police there but it does not have troops. And of course the new French Prime Minister Francois Hollande has signalled that he wants the vast bulk of French soldiers out this year. 
The overall outcome of the war in Afghanistan is beyond the control of New Zealand troops based in Bamian Province. According to news reports we have about 150 soldiers there. What is interesting is that in 2010 the then defence Minister Wayne Mapp was interviewed and he said that we had about 100 soldiers there and that we were planning to draw down from September 2011. Instead it seems like we have increased the number of troops that we have in Bamian. This is after the current President of Afghanistan Hamid Karzai in early 2011 called for the withdrawal of the foreign provincial reconstruction teams in an interview with the BBC. So it was the President of Afghanistan who was calling for the withdrawal. Unfortunately this advice has not been heeded and rather than drawing down the provincial reconstruction team in Bamian the New Zealand Government instead has increased our commitment there. 
I think it is important to note that the initial premise of our provincial reconstructions team was that it was not ostensibly a fighting force. The original Beehive 
statement by Mark Burton in 2003 clearly stated that the provincial reconstruction team was not considered a combat unit. For many in New Zealand the danger faced by our soldiers has perhaps been underplayed. We have not realised the level of danger that they are exposed to but now that is clearly there for all to see. 
As our provincial reconstruction team has been pushed further out from the centre of Bamian Province so the danger to our soldiers has grown. The Taliban presence within Bamian and surrounding provinces has also increased in recent years. New Zealand’s losses in that province occurred in the north-east part of it. Earlier this month the Government took a Cabinet decision to widen even further the area of operations of our provincial reconstruction team. It seems to us that it is time for Cabinet to revisit that decision. Thank you. 
MIKE SABIN (National—Northland) 
: 
 While on the subject of Afghanistan can I just please pass my sincere condolences to the families of the fallen soldiers and thank them for the commitment they have made to this country and indeed to world peace and the efforts on the global stage. 
What is it that sets this National Party apart from those in “Labour Land” and from across there in the watermelon patch? Well I can tell you that the main thing is that we are just getting on with the job responsibly managing the Government’s finances and working to our plan to grow the economy. What does that require? It requires discipline and it requires focus on the things that matter. That is about making a difference— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Who wrote this rubbish? 
MIKE SABIN 
: I wrote it Mr Mallard. I wrote it. I can give you a copy if you would like. That requires staying on task for what matters and knowing what we stand for. Whereas in “Labour Land” of course those members do not know what they stand for they do not even know who their leader is or who they want it to be for that matter. They do not have any discipline unless you count Mr Shearer’s conversation with the media the other day that he would tell members like that that he should keep his trap shut and keep it behind closed doors—unless you call that discipline. They do not have a plan other than to oppose. That is all they can do and that is all they want to do. They do not want jobs they do not want the economy to grow because they want to be able to turn round and say to New Zealand: “Please elect us because there hasn’t been any growth in the economy and there are no jobs.” Well New Zealanders have woken up to that Mr Mallard. They have woken up to your self-serving agenda and that is why you are sitting on that side of the House. 
There is one thing that they will do though— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The Speaker does not have a self-serving agenda. 
MIKE SABIN 
: Sorry Mr Speaker I am sure you do not. But some members on the other side of the House I am sure do. There is one thing that we have been told that they will do. Mr Parker said that they will get rid of the Puhoi motorway extension. In fact a week ago in this House he said that they would can it. This really is something of great concern to people in Northland. It is ironic given that they were up in Northland not that long ago having a wee Labour Party retreat a few photo opportunities and some fish and chips at the Maunganui fish and chip shop. I bet they did not get up on soap boxes and talk about canning the Puhoi project on that particular visit. No they save that for the safety of this place. 
So how do I know that that road is so important to Northland? I know that because as a new National Party MP I facilitated economic summits in Northland to look at how we could grow the economic opportunities in that part of the world because there are many and because the social dysfunction and the welfare dependence that so many will talk to is really the result of an underperforming economy and is not reflective of an economy that has much potential and is something that should be mobilised. So over the last couple of months I have facilitated the summits. The aim was to build a vision and a plan for the region that would identify where the enablers and constrainers were in achieving that goal. Over 440 attendees from 14 sectors across the Northland economy visited and participated in those summits and they found that 89 percent of the enablers and constrainers they saw fell into nine core themes. What was at the top of that list? It was infrastructure. Infrastructure was at the top of that list and at the top of the infrastructure list was the Puhoi motorway extension. 
Northland is a region with immense potential and a very bad road. Northland has immense potential for aquaculture forestry minerals oil and gas exploration geothermal power development of the Maori economy tourism manufacture agriculture horticulture—the list goes on. It is a long list. That road is a vital piece of infrastructure in Northland and it has been called for for years. Everyone in that part of the world knows that it is a trade and economic highway not a “Holiday Highway” as the “Labour Landers” would have you say it is. The National Government knows how important that piece of infrastructure is. The member for Rodney behind me and the member from Whangarei certainly do. 
We are committing to helping businesses to grow themselves and to improve the economic potential. We are committed to Northlanders. This party is committed to New Zealanders. We are committed to ensuring that New Zealand has a brighter future and that is what we are getting on with doing. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 We on this side of the House are enormously proud of our public education system. It has a wonderfully high standard that is recognised internationally and it is something to be celebrated not dumped on like this National Government is doing. We need to celebrate the fact that we have good teachers and staff in our schools in our early childhood centres and in our institutions and universities. But one of the saddest things I have heard in the last couple of weeks was at the meeting of educationalists and teachers who told me that they are losing the passion for teaching because of the dumping that is going on from this Government the madness that has descended from this Government that we have seen through most of the year. 
First of all it was the class sizes debacle. Of course the Government thought the parents would not notice that because it was having a go at the teachers and it thought that the parents would side with it on that. Well of course parents did notice and they made a big fuss about it and the Government was forced to back down. Then we had league tables and we have still got league tables—another part of the madness that has descended on the education system from this Government. And now thanks to a cup of tea and a pretty dirty deal we have got the latest madness which is charter schools—or am I supposed to call them partnership schools now? They are charter schools which no— 
Hon Annette King 
: John Banks’ folly. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: John Banks’ folly. Schools that no one wants no one needs except the deluded members of the ACT Party. I was interested to go back and have a look at what happened and what the ACT Party said when it launched its policy. It was poor poor old Dr Don Brash who launched it. 
Hon Annette King 
: The old hapless dried arrangement. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: The hapless Don Brash who launched the policy for charter schools at a school that is in the area in which I work as an MP in Browns Bay the Corelli performing arts school. In his speech he compared our education system to McDonald’s. He compared it to McDonald’s. He said: “If the education system was the restaurant industry these”—talking about private schools like Corelli—“would be the specialist suburban eateries faithfully serving their unique local markets. The rest of the education system would be McDonald’s serving the same stuff consistently across every location. The head office being the Ministry of Education sets the menu … the performance standards being the exams the décor being the bricks and mortar of the school the pay rates being the national teacher pay scale and the way customers are served being the teaching style.” 
So what he was telling us in that speech is that the 97 percent of kids who go to State schools deserve nothing more than McDonald’s and that actually the 3 percent who go to private schools are going to get a lot better than that. Try telling my kids who actually have a master’s degree and doctorates now that because they went to State institutions they have been let down. Well actually the only thing that has let them down is the fact that there are no decent job opportunities for talented young people in New Zealand. They have left along with the landslide of other Kiwis who we are seeing heading to the other side of the world for better work and better wages. They ain’t coming home any time soon. 
David Selfe the principal of the Corelli Academic School of Arts addressed the ACT Party conference before the last election praising the setting up of the charter schools. There is a very close link with Corelli so I thought I would tell the House a little bit about what is going on. It claims to be the only charter school in New Zealand and it charges around $18000 per year for senior students. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: How much? 
DARIEN FENTON 
: Eighteen thousand dollars per year. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Is that boarding? 
DARIEN FENTON 
: It is in Browns Bay too. It is not boarding. It is for performing arts. It is in Browns Bay so it is not in South Auckland or Christchurch where the poorer kids are like ACT says it wants to be. But the interesting thing about Corelli is that it is now taking a large number of its own parents to court. They are taking them to court for allegedly breaking their scholarships. These kids— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: So the kids are leaving? 
DARIEN FENTON 
: The kids are leaving and they are getting sued. The parents are being sued. The kids went to school to get an education to gain university entrance and to further their talents in the performing arts which is what this school is supposed to be about. But they did not get the education that they were expecting. Some of them found they were not on track to get qualifications they signed up for. The subjects they were expecting to do were cancelled. Qualifications were not offered in their place they were not up to university entrance standards and there were not enough classes being offered. So parents pulled their kids out of the school and they have had to take them elsewhere to get their education. 
One of the parents has told me that their child is now a year behind in her schooling. She has to catch up with her peers. Her parents are being sued. What an advertisement from the poster child of the charter schools model. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 21 August. 
Part 3 Objections appeals and enforcement ( 
continued 
)  
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Kia ora tatou no reira e te Whare. Tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou katoa. Good afternoon honourable members. The House is in Committee on the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill also the Regulatory Reform Bill the Trade (Safeguard Measures) Bill and the Taxation (Annual Rates Returns Filing and Remedial Matters) Bill. When the Committee last considered the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill we had reached Part 3. The question is therefore that Part 3 stand part. I call the honourable member Jacqui Dean.  
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 Good choice. Good choice Mr Chair. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak on Part 3 of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill. 
Chris Hipkins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am sorry to interrupt the member who I think genuinely believed that she had the call but my understanding is that when this debate was last interrupted there was a member in the middle of a call or getting towards the end of their call but had not concluded. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Well all I can say to the honourable member is that according to the drill sheet that I have here it said that we had reached Part 3 and the question is that Part 3 stand part. 
Grant Robertson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I may be able to clarify. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Please do Mr Robertson. 
Grant Robertson 
: I was the member on my feet at that time. I understand that I had 5 seconds remaining on my call during which time I would have asked the Government to support Charles Chauvel’s Supplementary Order Paper 95. Thank you. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Well I guess that that is a good one. 
JACQUI DEAN 
: The Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill Part 3 is where the rubber effectively hits the road with this piece of legislation because it is the part that deals with or provides for objections to the Environmental Protection Authority and also appeals to the High Court on questions of law. Subpart 2 of Part 3 provides for enforcement of the bill by providing for the Environment Court to issue enforcement orders and that is under clause 113 and also—and I am about to refer to the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 100 here—offences and penalties under clause 124 and clause 125 which of course with the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper have increased from $600000 through to $10 million. It also deals with the appointment of enforcement officers under clause 129. So it is a really important portion of the exclusive economic zone legislation because it provides the backstop. It provides the accountability for any activities that are consented under this new regime in the exclusive economic zone and the extended continental shelf. 
Just for a bit of context about why this is so necessary I think it is probably good for the Committee to remember that the current regulatory regime has got some significant gaps in it which means that there are a number of activities that are currently occurring inside the exclusive economic zone that are in effect unregulated. So the assessment of the effects of activities—that is other than fishing in the exclusive economic zone—on seafloor habitats and on biodiversity which might be as a result of seabed mining is lacking. There is a gap in the assessment of the effects of activities on biodiversity in the water column. That refers to the effects of seismic surveys on marine life. None of those considerations are currently taken account of in legislation. 
Also there is a gap in the assessment of the effects of new activities on existing interests—for example the effects of a petroleum platform on surrounding fishing and shipping—and of the management of the cumulative effects of all activities in the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf as they are regulated under different and multiple regimes with a differing and variable ability to take into account the sorts of activities in decision making. So there is a gap there. In fact I would argue that there is quite a yawning gap. This Government took action back in 2006 when Cabinet proceeded to the development of a legislative framework to tidy up the gaps in the regulations around activities in the exclusive economic zone. 
Why are these gaps a problem? There is not terribly much that happens in the exclusive economic zone and we have been told that and we understand that. So why are these gaps a problem and why is it so necessary to have inserted in this bill parts like Part 3? This part provides for objections to the Environmental Protection Authority which is the determining body of activities along with appeals to the High Court on points of law and also provides for and describes offences and penalties. Why is that so important and why is it a critical part of this exclusive economic zone bill? Well there is of course the potential for unregulated activities such as we have now could have in the future and did have during the term of the previous Labour Government to cause environmental harm. That environmental harm could impact on a lot of things: on marine life on marine habitats and also on marine biodiversity. Because of the nature of some of the activities that occurred occur and might occur in the exclusive economic zone some of those impacts could be quite severe—for example oil spills and the destruction due to dredging of the seabed of significant benthic communities. 
There is also—and I think this is pretty critical and germane to this bill—no mechanism for ensuring public participation in decision making around these activities. So it is beyond me why Labour and Greens are opposing this bill. I can only come to the conclusion that Labour and the Greens in this House and in this Parliament are quite satisfied with the 9 years of the previous Labour Government and the state of affairs where there are yawning regulatory gaps in this legislation. They are opposing this exclusive economic zone bill and I can only conclude that they actually do not care that much about what is happening in the exclusive economic zone. Maybe because it is so far out to sea they do not particularly care about what happens out in the exclusive economic zone. Well I can assure the Committee that this party does and that is why this party has brought this exclusive economic zone bill to the House. 
Just briefly on Part 3 the enforcement of offences and penalties is very closely described in some detail. If members would have a look at clause 113 they would see that it is quite explicit in what it requires people who are undertaking activities in the exclusive economic zone to do. For example if there is “an order made by the Environment Court or an Environment Judge” it has the effect of requiring the person “to stop doing something”. That is just a few words in this bill but what that might mean is quite a significant penalty and impact on some activity in the exclusive economic zone. Part 3 is a significant and substantive part of this bill. Thank you. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I think it says more about the member who just taken her seat Jacqui Dean than it does about members of the Opposition if after all the time we spent together on the Local Government and Environment Committee and all the speeches in this Chamber she still does not understand why Labour and the Greens oppose this piece of legislation the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill. She said that it is because the exclusive economic zone is far away—it is far away. This was someone of course who did ask a submitter whether the ocean could be described as a deep-water marine environment at the select committee so I have to say that Jacqui Dean is being very disingenuous when she says she does not understand why we oppose this legislation. We oppose this legislation because it simply is not consistent with our international obligations and it does not provide the level of environmental protection that the community wants and that we should be expecting in an environment as precious as our marine environment which so much of our economy relies on. We contacted the Minister for the Environment Amy Adams and we tried to work with her to find a compromise where we could get a settled cross-party agreement so that there would be certainty for everyone. We were rebuffed on that. That is the reality of what happened instead of the fiction that we have just heard from Jacqui Dean. 
Part 3 of this piece of legislation is around appeals enforcement orders and abatement notices. One of our big concerns about this part is that unlike under the Resource Management Act where submitters or opponents are able to take a case to the Environment Court on points of fact where they disagree with an issue where new information has come to light or where they do not think the decision was right they can take it only on points of law to the High Court under this exclusive economic zone legislation. As I said in my speech yesterday a jurisdictional line has been drawn between our territorial waters and the exclusive economic zone. It is only jurisdictional. Many many other pieces of legislation in New Zealand operate across both perfectly adequately. Whether that be fisheries legislation whether that be health and safety legislation or whether that be maritime legislation they do not have any problems differentiating between our exclusive economic zone and our territorial waters. 
Apparently this is one piece of legislation where it is absolutely impossible to get consistency between the two. We disagree with that and one area where we do disagree is in the taking away of the rights of people to access the Environment Court on points of substance. I think it is a false economy to think that you are going to save a lot of time and money by doing this. One of the things the Environment Court has done—and there are plenty of protections in there to avoid vexatious claimants—is taken a lot of that negotiation and a lot of that mediation offline and out of that process. Because all parties know that there is potential for that to happen and there is that recourse a lot more effort is put into making sure that obvious issues are dealt with up front and that obvious stakeholders are consulted unlike what we saw up on the East Coast with Petrobras where local iwi heard about it on the 6 o’clock news. That is not adequate. What we know is that under Resource Management Act legislation it does provide an incentive for people to try to sort out as many of those issues as they possibly can before they get to the actual legal process. We note of course with some concern that the Government is now moving to remove that ability under the Resource Management Act as well and talking about these plans of regional significance which will no longer be able to go through that full court process. We are concerned about that as well. To parties who are voting for this bill because they like more alignment with the Resource Management Act just be aware of where the Resource Management Act is going. Suddenly being aligned with the Resource Management Act may not be as flash a thing as it used to be in the past. 
We have Supplementary Order Paper 95 in the name of Charles Chauvel to delete the clause that states you can take an appeal only on points of law and also to replace “High Court” with “Environment Court”. One of the interesting things about this is that when we come to the issue of enforcement orders which the member Jacqui Dean was talking about because of the experience and the knowledge held there it is actually the Environment Court that deals with that. It is actually the Environment Court that issues the notice. It is the Environment Court that upholds it. The Environment Court of course has a lot of expertise in this area and we just think that perhaps it should also be the court that is dealing with appeals when people have concerns about marine consents that have been granted or indeed where an applicant has concerns that the requirements that the Environmental Protection Authority has put upon them are too stringent. So it should be there for all parties. To create this kind of new set of goalposts just because we have crossed over an invisible line in the ocean which has nothing to do with resource management allocation has nothing to do with science and has nothing to do with environmental integrity—it has nothing to do with any of that; it is just an invisible jurisdictional line—and to suddenly say that the goalposts are a lot further away once you step over that line to us does not really make an awful lot of policy sense unless what you are trying to do is streamline these projects and make it harder for communities to raise concerns. 
I want to put that into context of the reality that a lot of communities face. We are already looking at local government which is struggling to make a lot of these decisions. It may be the first port of call in some instances for communities that have concerns about applications that are going to the Environmental Protection Authority where it might want its local authority to submit on behalf of the community. I look at the Gisborne District Council. It is a unitary authority with a low rating base. It does not have a lot of money to access the kind of research that these companies can access. There is not a lot of money in my community to access that research particularly within some of the time frames that have been given. Because it will be up to the Environmental Protection Authority as to how it sets the timing of the hearings there is a concern again that that timing could be so short so that these communities will not be able to even access those organisations that would be able to provide them with some help and with some assistance. The reality is that everything is weighed against communities that have concerns right from the beginning. We would like to have seen this legislation actually try to incentivise engaging with communities not a piece of legislation that essentially could see stuff being pushed through against a community’s will when it does not have the resources to access the kind of research that some of these companies—which remember go all around the world doing these projects and have big research teams because this is what they do on a regular basis—are able to access. They have access to vast amounts of money to produce that research. We would just like to see a little bit of a level playing field so that communities are not completely left out of the loop and are given a much higher threshold to jump over than the applicants that are applying to carry out the activity. 
I just want to quickly touch on the issue of penalties. We are very very pleased to see the dramatic increase in penalty. I really wish it could have been done at the select committee and we would not have had to bash our heads against the wall asking why the penalties were so low. It would have been nice to have been done at the select committee but it is great that it is being done here and I want to thank the officials for all their work on this part as well. 
I come back to a core point as well which we will address in Part 4 which is the ability to actually collect the money and to ensure that it is there. We could have a penalty of $1 billion but if these companies are simply going to fold or if we are unable to require bonds and insurance up front to ensure that that liability can be met then it really does not matter what the penalty is. There were concerns again at the select committee about that but we will come to that in Part 4. We have a Supplementary Order Paper in my name and there is also a Supplementary Order Paper in Gareth Hughes’ name to increase the rest of the penalties because of course there are a range of penalties under the bill. We are only increasing one of them here. As we have said we absolutely welcome that increase in penalty. It will provide a much bigger disincentive than the previous penalty but again we really would question—and I am not sure whether the Minister in the chair is able to have the answer to this; she is the Minister of Conservation so I am sure she is taking an active active interest in the exclusive economic zone legislation—why none of the other penalties are being increased because we also felt that they were inadequate. But we are not going to be churlish around the issue of the main penalty as $10 million is a very very very drastic improvement on what was in the bill as it came to the select committee. Thank you. 
EUGENIE SAGE (Green) 
: 
 I would like to correct some of the statements that Jacqui Dean made. I think she was more than mischievous in not accurately characterising the Green Party’s position on this bill the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill. We supported the bill at its introduction because there is a huge gap in the environmental management of our oceans—the fact that we do not have legislation that provides for a consenting regime. But we have opposed it and continue to oppose it because of the major shortcomings of the bill: the fact that there is no hierarchy for matters of national importance the fact that Treaty obligations are not well dealt with and the failure to adequately provide for the protection and preservation of the marine environment in line with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. 
In relation to this part Part 3 of the bill is about what can happen after the Environmental Protection Authority makes a decision. It relates to objections to the Environmental Protection Authority’s decisions appeals to the High Court and beyond on points of law and enforcement. It is this fact that there are no appeals to the Environment Court and that submitters and applicants can appeal only to the High Court against a whole or part of an Environmental Protection Authority decision that is a major issue because that is constraining access to justice—not having the full scope of appeal rights to the Environment Court. This was a deliberate policy decision by Cabinet and we understand that it was made because Cabinet believed that the Environmental Protection Authority was already making decisions at the national level and was seen as being an expert body. 
But as the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society noted in its submission clause 97 of the bill provides for applications that deal with nationally significant cross-boundary issues—that is across the 12-nautical-mile limit—to be dealt with by a board of inquiry not by the Environmental Protection Authority. So surely this is already signalling that the Environmental Protection Authority does not have the same standing and expertise as other decision makers—the fact that you get this delegated to a board of inquiry. The Green Party supports Supplementary Order Paper 95 in the name of Charles Chauvel because it would provide for appeals to the Environment Court instead of restricting it to the High Court. 
The experience with the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Act is instructive because that legislation has disallowed appeals to the Environment Court and restricted them to points of law appeals to the High Court. Environment Canterbury has just notified decisions on the Canterbury Regional Policy Statement. There has been a slew of appeals from various parties technically on points of law but a lot of those appeals actually raise substantive issues of public policy around environmental management and in that case the appropriateness of policies in the regional policy statement about whether they are adequate to control the allocation of water. Those sorts of public policy and public interest issues are much better dealt with by the Environment Court given its specialist expertise given the substantial technical skills of the commissioners who sit alongside the judiciary and given the court’s experience with mediation such that a lot of cases are resolved before going to a formal court hearing. 
I think the downplaying and setting aside of the role of the Environment Court in this bill is very short-sighted because it means that the focus is going to be very legalistic in the High Court where you do not have that specialist expertise that the Environment Court has. I think we need to reflect on the fact that the Environment Court succeeded the Planning Tribunal. It has dealt with and been fundamental in developing the case law around particular bits of the Resource Management Act—the meaning of particular clauses and the legislation there. Similarly this bill and the substantive issues about how our oceans should be managed would benefit from the Environment Court’s expertise and from allowing appeals to be taken there. 
The Environment Court is also much more accessible than the High Court to lay people so by restricting it to the High Court you are again constraining the ability of communities to engage. 
The Environment Court is not bound by strict rules of evidence. It has powers of inquiry which when you are dealing with public policy issues like resource management and management of the oceans are very useful. Given the substantive public interest issues that will come up in appeals in our view Charles Chauvel’sSupplementary Order Paper should proceed because it reinstates those appeals to the Environment Court. I think doing away with the Environment Court is incredibly short-sighted. I think it reflects this Government’s focus on pushing development through as quickly as possible without taking significant account of environmental impacts. 
The other matter I would like to comment on is clause 125 and the proposals in Supplementary Order Papers from Labour and from my colleague Gareth Hughes to increase those penalties. Like Moana Mackey said it would have been good to see that done in the Local Government and Environment Committee because Opposition members certainly raised this several times but we were defeated there. The problem with the bill as it is currently drafted is that the penalties are the same as the maximum fines in the Resource Management Act—$600000 for corporations and $30000 for natural persons plus there is a provision for continuing fines. But here we are dealing with major corporations with significant financial clout getting involved in activities that are very risky. There is an obvious need to substantially increase the penalties. 
The Minister for the Environment’s Supplementary Order Paper 100 is a very useful step in the right direction because it would increase the fines to $10 million for any offence involving a corporation. But that should be higher and Gareth Hughes’ Supplementary Order Paper 102 provides for a more realistic penalty of $12 million because we are dealing with oil and gas prospecting companies and the potential consequences of something like an oil well blowout are catastrophic. So it is very appropriate that the fine should be $12 million rather than $10 million. We recognise that even when you set fines at this level of course they cannot compensate for the ecological consequences and the economic consequences of such a catastrophe. We will be supporting the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 100 on Part 3 if Supplementary Order Paper 102 does not get the support of the Committee. Thank you. 
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call on Part 3 of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill. I just want to start by making a couple of comments. The first is to acknowledge why we are here. We know that there is a regulatory gap. We know that our exclusive economic zone and continental shelf offer significant opportunities. The question is after a significant period when Governments did not move to fulfil this regulatory gap whether here today parties in Parliament will support legislation to be able to do that. I am very pleased that we have seen the Maori Party and the New Zealand First Party shift to support this legislation and I think one of the key reasons for that was there has been a Supplementary Order Paper. 
One of the key aspects of our Supplementary Order Paper 100 addresses this issue this Part 3 of the bill. If we look at Supplementary Order Paper 100 which has been put to the Committee it has been supported by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. In fact the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment has been very clear that she now supports this bill. One of the key aspects of Supplementary Order Paper 100 is to significantly increase the penalties. When you look through all of Part 3 everything that this part is about is saying that we want to decrease risk to our environment and ensure that there are adequate enforcement powers and adequate penalties to be able to do that. This Supplementary Order Paper massively strengthens that by taking it from $600000 for the maximum penalty to $10 million. 
Additionally if you look through some of these clauses we have had a great contribution from the community and we have really strengthened the law as a result of that. I want to make a special mention of one of the submitters that came to the Local Government and Environment Committee and I think had a real impact on the committee. That was the Taranaki Regional Council. It has been undertaking activity in terms of marine consents in coastal waters for years. It came to our select committee with a very practical suggestion around the fact that there needed to be greater enforcement in terms of abatement notices and our select committee acted. When you look at the provisions in the bill that deal with this—clause 122A right through to clause 122D—it really shows that we are serious about enforcement. But we are also serious about when the system might see that something is going wrong—about there being an ability for people to ask questions or to ask for activity to be looked at or stopped. That really shows right throughout this part whether it is the penalties the abatement notices or even if we turn to some sections around enforcement and the powers of enforcement officers—clauses 129 130 and 131. They show a huge amount of power in terms of being able to search vessels and get information. 
So what I think this part is actually about is giving a lot of confidence in terms of our environmental management regime to say: “Yes we do believe in exploring greater economic opportunities but we want to ensure that there are some powers in there to prevent and mitigate risk.” That is a very sensible piece of legislation for this House to be passing. I want to acknowledge those parties that have realised that the changes through Supplementary Order Paper 100 are significant and that have seen that the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment supports them. The Maori Party and the New Zealand First Party have taken practical measures to show their support for addressing this regulatory gap and ultimately making our environmental regime stronger. Thank you. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 I want to take just a brief call on the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill partly to respond to that speech we have just heard from Nikki Kaye and partly to ask the Minister in the chair the Hon Kate Wilkinson a question. I think in fairness to the previous speaker everybody in this House throughout the debate has acknowledged the importance of filling the regulatory gap that there is. There has been some disagreement among parties about how we do that about the extent to which we need to have consistency with our international obligations and about the extent to which we need to have consistency with our domestic law such as the Resource Management Act. There has been a shift from the Government in that regard which we welcome on this side of the Chamber. 
If we are going to use Part 3 as the example of what Nikki Kaye has just said—she mentioned the importance of the community and the importance of people having confidence in the system—that is the very reason why we have got an amendment in place around the question of appeals and whether or not appeals can go to the Environment Court because that is exactly the point of giving people the opportunity to have a say. Remember under this law appeals can be only on points of law. They cannot be on facts and they cannot be on new information. If the member is serious about wanting to create a law that gives the community a say and that ensures there is community confidence I do not see how opposing the Supplementary Order Paper that we have tabled to bring the Environment Court back in Supplementary Order Paper 95 would do that. 
I think it would be good for the Government to stop and think and to listen to for instance the contribution from Eugenie Sage just now on what role the Environment Court can actually play in helping develop law in this area because it is quite clear to anyone who has been following this debate that there will be significant dispute around some of the things that have been raised in this bill—for instance the meaning of the phrase “favour caution” or whatever you want to look at. There will be issues here. The Environment Court has actually played a very constructive role in establishing the body of law in practice with the Resource Management Act— 
Nikki Kaye 
: There are appeals around to the Environment Court around abatement notices. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: That is the point. But specifically in clause 103 on the question of appeals that is why we have made that change. I mean this is a genuine thing. I am not saying that the Government does not care about this; I am just saying that there is a better alternative which we know about as a result of the Resource Management Act that would facilitate the thing that the member just told us she was concerned about which is the involvement of the community and the ability to build up that body of law that will give people confidence. 
I appeal to the Government to have a look at the Supplementary Order Paper that exists on this and to consider whether or not it could support both broadening the scope of appeals to be able to be on matters of fact as well as on matters of law and bringing the Environment Court back into that phase because I do believe that that will make for better law in the long run in this area. 
The other matter I wanted to just quickly raise was around the question of penalties contained in clause 125. As I think I said in my earlier contribution on this matter we welcome the fact that the Government has increased the penalty for someone committing an offence under this bill to the large figure of $10 million. That is great but there is now an inconsistency created in the law because the following provisions of clause 125 cover what happens in the event of a continuing offence when somebody continues to break the law. That is defined quite clearly under clause 125(6) where it says: “The continued existence of anything or the intermittent repetition of any actions contrary to any provision of this Act is a continuing offence.”—so there is a very clear definition of what a continuing offence is—the Government has rightly said that this is such a significant area that it has to set a proper deterrent in place. It has to set something that is commensurate with the scale of what will be going on in the exclusive economic zone. It is $10 million for an offence—that is great. 
But then we come down to clause 125(2) (3) and (4) and we have fines of $10000 a day for a continuing offence. It is now completely out of whack. It is $10 million when you break the law and then we drop all the way down to $10000 a day. If it is a company—and these are large companies that are involved in this—that is hardly a consistent or commensurate penalty for a continuing offence. So I welcome the fact that the Government has decided to amend clause 125(1). It has done exactly the right thing which as my colleagues in the Local Government and Environment Committee have noted was something that Opposition parties said often much to the concern of the Government members who did not seem at that point to agree with us. They do now. So why then not back Supplementary Order Paper 103 in Moana Mackey’s name or indeed the Supplementary Order Paper in Gareth Hughes’ name Supplementary Order Paper 102 which actually make those penalties for a continuing offence more appropriate? They are out of whack at the moment and I would like the Minister in the chair or a Government member to be able to rise now and tell us why the Government will not make changes to the continuing offence penalties given that it has made those changes under clause 125(1). It just does not make logical sense. The Committee is in agreement here that we need to have penalties that fit the crime—as it were—and have a deterrent effect. That is happening in one part of clause 125 but then it completely fails in the rest. 
In clause 125(2) at the moment the first stage of what happens with a continuing offence is a fine not exceeding $10000 for every day. We are proposing in Supplementary Order Paper 103 that that becomes $100000 every day from thereon. After that when it is a summary conviction and it carries on the penalty is $1000 per day under clause 125(3). We would like to see that go up to $100000 and if the offence is a continuing one to a further fine not exceeding $10000. 
Finally under clause 125(4) where it says: “A person who commits an offence … is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $1500.” we would like to see that go to $15000. This is simply consistent with where the Government has now reached on clause 125(1) and if the Government is not going to support that Supplementary Order Paper this Committee deserves to know why because it is completely inconsistent and illogical. We end up with a penalty regime that does not fit the magnitude of what may be taking place inside the exclusive economic zone. That is our big concern with Part 3 of this bill. 
We do want to support the Government in raising these penalties. Everybody in this Chamber wants to support the Government but I just urge some consistency in this particular part. 
RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
Tena koe Mr Chair. I am pleased to make a contribution on Part 3 of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill and I would like to pick up on Mr Robertson’s contribution in regard to Supplementary Order Paper 95 in the name of Charles Chauvel in terms of clause 103. It is interesting. I have just looked at the departmental report as reported back from the Local Government and Environment Committee in regard to clause 103. There were some 22 submissions covering clause 103 and all of them were universally opposed to restricting rights of appeal to the High Court and purely on points of law. So there were strong submissions being made that rights of appeal go to the Environment Court and that they follow the standard practice of appeals under the Resource Management Act which provides full rights of de novo appeals on questions of fact and law to the Environment Court. 
We had submissions from the likes of our main listed fishing company Sanford. We had submissions from Sanford and I read that there were submissions from the likes of the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society—all saying the same thing. So it is disappointing then that the submissions—22 of them in total all universally saying that we need to make sure that we change these rights of appeal so we can actually go to the Environment Court and cover questions of fact and law—were not adopted. 
It seems that the departmental officials toeing the line of the Government said that there is some degree of alignment with the Resource Management Act. Because of the regime that has now been imposed in the Resource Management Act—the fact that nationally significant projects can be basically applied and ticked off very quickly by a technical committee and appeals go only to the High Court on points of law—there is some consistency with the Resource Management Act. Well that is not good enough. We know that there are a lot of concerns around activities in the exclusive economic zone and we want to make sure that there is confidence in the whole process for applicants and for those who are concerned and are opposing such applications so I do support Supplementary Order Paper 95. 
I will just go through the other clauses in Part 3 point by point. Clause 114 deals with the enforcement orders. Obviously this has had “or any other person” added before “may apply to the Environment Court for an enforcement order.” Originally it was limited to the Environmental Protection Authority and now it has been extended out to any person so we support that amendment which came through the select committee. Likewise the inclusion of abatement notices in clause 122A was an important addition; it gives another option in terms of enforcement or remedies in Part 3 of the Act. Likewise the insertion in clause 122F: it is a useful tool for the Environmental Protection Authority in dealing with urgent matters. There are little technical things around procedural aspects for abatement notices and the like which were tidied up and have been included in the bill as it has been reported back. 
I would like to move on to clause 125 which we have been talking about this afternoon and which deals with the penalty provisions and Supplementary Order Paper 103 in the name of my colleague Moana Mackey. Certainly if there are breaches of the Act or breaches of provisions in terms of clause 124 we want to make sure that there are penalties that provide a good disincentive for breaches of the Act. It is commendable that Supplementary Order Paper 100 in the name of the Minister for the Environment does include amendments that increase the penalties up to $10 million. That is commendable and we do support that. But as we go through all of the other penalties and fines throughout clause 125 we see that it is incongruent in terms of having a $6 million fine and then going down to some $10000 fines—some very petty fines which are not real deterrents. So we want to make sure that there is consistency right across those fines hence Ms Mackey’s Supplementary Order Paper 103 which basically increases all of those fines tenfold. There are tenfold increases in those fines proposed to make sure that there is a nice balance across the fines in clause 125 but also to make sure that there is sufficient disincentive for breaches of the Act by those who may want to do so in regard to their activities. 
Part 3 as a whole deals with objections appeals and enforcements but I think critically there are the two Supplementary Order Papers that deal with creating the right of appeal to the Environment Court on points of law—in fact appeals de novo—and we would ask the Government to support Supplementary Order Paper 95. Likewise Supplementary Order Paper 103 which extends increases and provides more balance and grunt to the fine provisions in clause 125. Thank you. 
ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First) 
: 
 I will take a call on Part 3 of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill just to perhaps make a few points of clarification. I thank the prior speaker Rino Tirikatene for his comments but I just wanted to raise a few issues in regard to some of the comments he made. 
When this came to the Local Government and Environment Committee there were some concerns that possibly there was no recourse to the Environment Court and that was a question—I was one of the ones who questioned it. But we were assured by the officials and by the counsel who was in attendance that the actual Environmental Protection Authority itself had Environment Court judges who were now with the authority and were in effect fulfilling the role within the Environmental Protection Authority of providing that aspect. In other words instead of having to go off to the Environment Court the Environmental Protection Authority itself had learned judges within its own body who would be considering the applications for projects and consents within the exclusive economic zone. I was very pleased to hear that basically this agency was not just reliant on officials to do the work but did have High Court judges involved in the agency itself which took away much of the concern in relation to not having that appeal to the Environment Court. We still also heard that there are of course opportunities for appeals on points of law to both the High Court and the Court of Appeal. 
In relation to the fines—and again we did lobby to get the fines increased—we are very pleased that it did go to $10 million from what was $600000. It is a very hefty and sizeable increase. I do believe that New Zealand First would have difficulties with some of the other incremental fines going up to the order of $100000 per day because on a daily basis those sorts of figures become incredibly difficult to manage in that some of the breaches could be relatively minor or could actually have little consequence but would need the parties to take action. On the basis of $100000 per day where there might simply be some technical matters that need to be remedied that would be a very very onerous figure to impose on any organisation that was trying to bring itself into line with its particular consent. 
But having said that at the end of the day were that organisation to continue to breach the basis of its consents and if it were incurring $10000 a day and continuing to do so for a period of time to the point where it was not actually sorting the problem out or where it was unable or unwilling to solve the issue then there is that final situation where the organisation can be taken to court and fined up to $10 million. That would be the ultimate penalty—to do that. But in the meantime it certainly would make it very very difficult for many organisations to operate in New Zealand to undertake development exercises and to undertake important economic development within our exclusive economic zone if they were going to be subject to possibly $100000 in fines on a daily basis. 
So I would just repeat the comments that we made. It is most important—and we do support Part 3 of this bill and the rest of the bill in its total for the exclusive economic zone—that we do require economic development in this country. This is a huge potential resource. I will give one example which quite staggered me at the Local Government and Environment Committee where it was said that the Chatham Rise had one of the largest deposits of phosphate in the world and that currently New Zealand imports very very large volumes of phosphate from Morocco and Algeria. We are very dependant on sources of phosphate for our agricultural sector from countries that are not always necessarily that stable. We could as an agricultural nation find ourselves in great difficulty if our sources of phosphate came a bit unstuck. What is projected for the Chatham Rise would have an impact in the order of something like 1 percent of the total area of the Chatham Rise and to secure phosphate in the future from there for the New Zealand agricultural sector would make us 100 percent self-sufficient in this country for our agricultural needs. You can imagine what impact that would have on our economy whereby this country which is so dependent on agriculture could be basically self-sufficient for phosphate for the next 100 years 200 years 300 years or more. 
Hon Craig Foss 
: All “phos” is good Foss. 
ANDREW WILLIAMS 
: Yes yes Mr Foss. You are a very good “Fossfate”. But your fate might be quite different in the future Mr Foss. 
But anyway to go back to the phosphate on the Chatham Rise that was one small example that came to the select committee of the importance of the exclusive economic zone to New Zealand and of the potential impact it would have on this economy if it is managed well if it is done in a sustainable manner and if the likes of extraction of that phosphate from the Chatham Rise is done in an environmentally friendly manner that will assist the New Zealand economy and not have any great impact on the Chathams. 
So I have just taken this call on behalf of New Zealand First to say that we will not be supporting the Supplementary Order Papers that are suggested and we feel that in this instance we support the Government through the Committee stage of the bill. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 95 in the name of Charles Chauvel to clause 103 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 46 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 11; Mana 1. 
Noes 72 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 8; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 102 in the name of Gareth Hughes to clause 125 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 46 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 11; Mana 1. 
Noes 72 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 8; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 103 in the name of Moana Mackey to clause 125 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 46 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 11; Mana 1. 
Noes 72 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 8; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 100 in the name of the Hon Amy Adams to Part 3 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 117 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 11; New Zealand First 8; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 1 
Mana 1. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 3 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 106 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; New Zealand First 8; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 12 
Green Party 11; Mana 1. 
Part 3 as amended agreed to. 
Part 4 Miscellaneous transitional provisions and consequential amendments 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Now honourable members we need to focus our minds on Part 4. The debate on Part 4 is clauses 133 through to 149A clause 16 and clauses 150 to 157. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 Part 4 of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill is very important because it contains the transitional provisions for the legislation which is how we deal with those activities that are currently under way and now need to be brought into this scheme and those who have been granted consents under the Crown Minerals Act but have not yet started that activity. It also deals with future transitional provisions for the changes in regulations that might occur under future Governments and under the next Labour Government obviously there will be changes. 
I just want to start by saying these are significant changes from what we saw at the Local Government and Environment Committee—significant. And it is actually very very difficult to fully understand the impact of these changes when we are not able to sit down with officials and talk through what the various changes mean. It is again very disappointing that this was not dealt with at the select committee. The advantage of delaying this bill by just a couple of weeks bearing in mind that there was quite a generous period between it leaving the select committee and coming back to the House for it second reading would have been that the regulations would be available so that we could take a more holistic view of the bill—the legislation alongside the regulations—and deal with these transitional provisions if there were significant problems with them which there must have been because we are making quite drastic changes and quite large changes compared with what the select committee finally decided upon. In the reading of these changes it appears that in tightening up the purpose clause—and I reiterate that we do no think that goes far enough in meeting our international obligations—there has been a lot of loosening up in other areas to avoid a backlash from industry. That would be my reading of what has happened in the transitional provisions here. 
When I say it is really difficult to fully comprehend whether some of the changes are minor or significant I am talking about changes like that in clause 149A. If we look at subclause (4) of that it used to say in the existing bill that came back from the select committee that the impact assessment had to comply with clause 40. When we look at clause 40 we see that it describes what an impact assessment must contain. It goes through everything that assessment has to do and what it has to contain. It goes into great detail. Well that requirement to comply has just been removed from the legislation completely and replaced with something else about incomplete applications. I am not sure why clause 149A(4) relating to clause 40 was removed given that these are people who do not have to go through the full process but instead have to provide an impact assessment and we are now saying that the clause that describes what has to be in an impact assessment no longer applies. That may be something that is minor. It does not seem like something that is minor. It seems like something fairly significant. And it is the same when you look at new clause 149A(7) which states that subclause (5) overrides clause 15. When you go back and look at clause 15 you see that clause 15 is actually one of the most important parts of the bill. It is in Part 1A “Duties and restrictions” and it is the restrictions on activities in the exclusive economic zone and in or on the continental shelf. It goes through in some detail what must not happen in the exclusive economic zone about the environmental damage that could occur. It is a very important clause. Subclause (7) of this new clause might just be something that is technical. It might be that these are transitional provisions so that part no longer applies but this was not raised with us at the select committee and whenever I see something overriding a significant part of the legislation I would like to know why. The other disturbing thing is that the Minister’s explanatory note is completely silent on this. It does not explain why this is happening. So I would like the Minister in the chair the Minister for Courts—who was actually a member of the select committee for some of this—to take a call on this. 
Grant Robertson 
: The former Minister could take a call. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Yes the former Minister could take a call and explain if he knows the answer to that because these are wholesale changes to what we decided at the select committee. 
 We are now no longer saying that when you are providing an impact assessment you have to have reference to the clause that says what has to be in that impact assessment and we are overriding a very serious clause about the duties and responsibilities and what cannot happen under the exclusive economic zone. I think it is only fair to ask what the practical impact of that is going to be why we are doing it and why this was not raised as an issue at the select committee. 
We had the clauses for existing activities and again as I said these changes have been made and we would like to know the answer to that. But now we have a whole new set of transitional provisions for planned activities. We went through the clauses in the select committee around existing activities and these are things that are already happening out there so that is fine. You have got to transition them in. You cannot just say well on the day that this legislation passes you have to stop doing what you are doing until you get a marine consent. I absolutely understand that. We have concerns around how far that might extend where people have not really already started or where people might rush to hurry up and get in. We were assured that no this was just existing activities. This is where people are already doing it and it would be unreasonable to expect them to stop just because we pass a law given that everything was consented and everything was approved under the previous legislative situation. 
Then the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper came out and suddenly we are talking about planned activities not just existing activities. The definition of planned activities means “an activity involved with the exploration prospecting or mining for petroleum”—and the same occurs with minerals—“if—(a) before the Act comes into force the exploration prospecting or mining for petroleum with which the activity is involved is authorised by a permit that was granted under … the Crown Minerals Act 1991 … and (b) the activity had not commenced before the Act comes into force.” We are no longer dealing with existing activities. We are now dealing with other things. It is a question that I asked of the Minister in Part 1A and she said she would come back to it in Part 4 because she felt that is where the discussion on transitional provisions should occur. What I want to know is if we take the example—because when we are talking about transition activities the problem is we are actually talking about specific cases the public knows about now and is concerned about now. It is not kind of in the theoretical in the future that we might be doing some stuff out here. Actually there are cases and there are permits that have been granted right now that are sitting there. Off the East Coast the Petrobras permit which has been granted is a well-known example. 
Petrobras has carried out only seismic surveying so far. It has said it wants to drill some exploratory wells. We are talking 3000 to 4000 metres deep and that obviously raises significant concerns in the community that I live in about the feasibility of doing that. What happens if something goes wrong? We notice that Anadarko Petroleum Corporation in far less deep waters has recently pulled back because of the inability to get a rig. The rigs for deep water are not that common. They are not like the smaller rigs. But it does beg the question: if it is so hard to get a rig to do the initial drilling how easy is it going to be to get a second rig to drill a relief well which is what you are going to need in waters of that depth because you cannot cap at 3000 to 4000 metres deep? Does this mean that if Petrobras wants to go ahead and drill that well it no longer has to get a marine consent because it was a planned activity? Does it mean that Petrobras can now go ahead with the exploration and mining because it was a planned activity and it has already been granted the permit? I do not know the answer to that question. I am hoping the answer to that question is no. As soon as Petrobras decides it wants to start drilling it is going to have to go through the marine consent process because that activity has not started yet. In fact it is a long way off I suspect particularly given some of the reported financial problems the company is having. But my reading of this is that even if it was not what it was intended it could very easily be interpreted—and again we do not want more legal battles over defining it—as saying that because it has been granted a permit under the Crown Minerals Act that makes it a planned activity. It means that it could go ahead and continue not just a seismic survey which is fine but also exploratory drilling and potentially mining in the Raukumara Basin 3000 to 4000 metres deep without my community getting to have a say and without going through the full marine consent process. If that is the case then that is deeply deeply worrying especially as the Government is issuing a large number of these permits right now. 
Suddenly that issuing of the permit process that is going on now carries a much greater significance if by getting one of those before this legislation passes into law that gives you rights out into perpetuity to be able to go through exploration exploratory drilling and mining without going through any process that examines the environmental impact of those activities. I sincerely hope that the answer is no it cannot in which case the question will be why we are even having to recognise planned activities. If it has not gone ahead why are the existing activities provisions not strong enough to deal with that? If there is some little difficulty that needs to be fixed then why are we not just patching up or strengthening beefing up the existing activities provisions instead of creating this whole new class? I hate to be cynical but I really feel that this was the trade-off with industry that when they saw the word “balance” going which was something they really wanted in the purpose clause they said: “Well what are we going to get in return?”. I suspect that this is what they got in return. 
EUGENIE SAGE (Green) 
: 
 Part 4 of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill is entitled “Miscellaneous transitional provisions and consequential amendments”. Some of the consequential amendments like the big slab in the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 100 in relation to the Biosecurity Act are not a problem. But the section as Moana Mackey has outlined around planned petroleum activities and some of the provisions as they relate to mineral prospecting and exploration under the Continental Shelf Act are deeply troubling. That is because these amendments have come in now. There has not been an opportunity for the Local Government and Environment Committee to look at them. There has not even been the Minister providing a commentary on them when introducing them. The Supplementary Order Paper has I think a few lines about them but that is all. And because of the detail here and the complexity the full scale of the impacts is not clear. 
But from reading the Supplementary Order Paper and the bill to date there is this whole notion in clause 151AA on the Supplementary Order Paper about “Mineral prospecting and exploration may commence and continue” if the company had a licence granted under the Continental Shelf Act 1964. This licence has been granted but the holder of the licence may not necessarily even have commenced the activity. It is not just that they actually commenced and had some sort of existing use rights. It is allowing a whole class of activity to happen without the requirements for a marine consent because this clause overrides clause 15 which of course is where all the provisions around getting a marine consent are set out and it allows an activity that is not even under way at the moment to go ahead. That seems incredibly permissive particularly around exploration for example for phosphate or activities like that. So that is one clause that we have got quite major problems with. 
Then there is clause 151A about planned petroleum activity. It is very interesting that the Supplementary Order Paper amendment to clause 151A changes the bill to make sure that the activity is planned—and of course there is no definition of “planned” in clause 4 the interpretation clause so it has got very wide scope. What does “planned” mean? Is it just an idea in the strategy section of a big oil exploration corporation? That term is not defined so it has got very wide scope. 
In the Supplementary Order Paper there is quite a significant change. In the bill as introduced the activity could continue without a marine consent until 1 May 2013. The Supplementary Order Paper has extended that for another year. It is interesting that Anadarko Petroleum Corporation is not coming here this summer because it has had difficulties getting a rig. Is this the “Anadarko amendment” that would allow it to go prospecting without getting a marine consent under the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill when it passes? Is this Supplementary Order Paper to allow Andarko just to go through and put in an impact assessment on a voluntary basis but not go through the statutory provisions? 
It would be helpful if the Minister in exile took a call on this to give us some assurance that this has not been the quid pro quo amendment for the industry. It is very troubling that that has been extended by a year and that we have got activities that were given licences under 1964 legislation that predates the whole consideration and assessment of environmental impact that we have had through the Resource Management Act and through this bill and that are allowed to continue even if they have not started yet. That is deeply troubling about this miscellaneous part of the bill. 
NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I rise to speak on Part 4 of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill. Yes it does cover a series of miscellaneous issues including the transitionary provisions and consequential amendments. It is really the nuts and bolts of how this legislation will work. It covers things like the detail of the cost recovery provisions the servicing of documents the rules and regulations around sensitive information and waivers and exemptions. Finally it includes a schedule relating to inspection powers. 
We know that this legislation is part of a whole suite of Acts that cover the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf marine environment and that it fills the gaps. This bill provides the legislative framework to manage and monitor activities and protect the environment. There are significant amendments to be made to existing legislation which are also done in Part 4. 
I would just like to focus on the transitional provisions particularly clause 151A. Moana Mackey was saying that she is having difficulty understanding these clauses and I would like to explain. Also Eugenie Sage asked us a question about clause 151A. This clause concerns activities such as prospecting exploration or mining for petroleum that are authorised by a permit. A planned activity is authorised by a permit. That permit is granted under section 25 or section 107 of the Crown Minerals Act 1991. In other words these are activities that are legally permitted before the bill that we are talking about now comes into force. 
The bill requires operators to prepare an impact assessment and provide it to the Environmental Protection Authority. However under the Minister for the Environment’s Supplementary Order Paper 100 this activity may continue without a marine consent after the date that the legislation comes into force for 12 months or to the very latest date of May 2014. That also answers Moana Mackey’s question about Petrobras. As it is Petrobras does not have a mining permit so it cannot mine; it can only prospect. It has an exploration permit. But the transitory provisions last for only 12 months after the regulations become law with a final date of May 2014. So finally whatever happens the end of that happens in 2014. Then it has to go to the marine consenting process. 
It may seem that the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper gives prospectors more leeway than the original bill but this is not the case. Let me explain. Clause 151A concerns prospecting information. The original bill required an application for marine consent to be made within 6 months—so we had to put the marine consent in within 6 months—but work could continue until the final decision was made on that application which could be 12 months. What the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper does does not change the outcome. The problem with the timing of the original bill was that the prospecting work would have already been completed before the consent decision was made. Therefore the consent would be redundant which actually would have made a bit of a mockery of the whole process and I do not think it would have been a good way to introduce our new legislation. Prospecting for petroleum takes place only in the summer months so there would be no activity under way while the company was preparing its consent up until November 2013. But while it was waiting for that decision the work would be under way and completed before the consent was issued in May 2014. 
The Supplementary Order Paper no longer requires an interim marine consent application which as you can see would come only after the work had been done so would have been a waste of everybody’s time but it definitely requires a consent before the following prospecting season. So the Minister’s change does not affect the outcome. It is not a softening up of the legislation but it does give more certainty to those who have planned authorised activities during the summer of 2013. I have to say that I think that is a reasonable and rational decision which gives credibility to the legislation. There would be nothing more galling to somebody who was prospecting than to have to go through all the process of applying for a consent and waiting for the decision but by the time the decision came the work had been done. It would be foolish if it was refused and of course it would have no use at all if it was approved. Thank you. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 Mr Chair I thank you for the call and I thank the member Nicky Wagner for her contribution. I want to make a general comment about the matters on Supplementary Order Paper 100 that cover Part 4 of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill and then raise some specific questions about those changes. The general comment is to say that there are significant changes in this Supplementary Order Paper as to how the transitional provisions will work. 
The member who has just resumed her seat has given an explanation around one of those—around the Supplementary Order Paper changes to clause 151A—but there are others as well around clause 149A and in particular around new clause 151AA that are major changes. It would have been good to have had select committee consideration of those. I am not doubting the word of the member or anything like that but to understand the impact of this with an Supplementary Order Paper that finds its way to us just a couple of days before we come to debate it is not satisfactory. We have said time and time again in this process that what everyone is after is certainty. What people want is the opportunity to be able to understand what the requirements will be and frankly in this particular part of the Supplementary Order Paper all we have got is uncertainty and questions that remain for us about what the impact of these changes will be. 
The member who has just resumed her seat says this is not about making things easier for those who already have licences to prospect or who have had consents granted. Although that is what she says what is on the paper in front of us looks like a regime that has been designed to make it as easy as possible for those companies that are there. It has some very flexible language inside it. It moves from “existing” activities to “planned” activities and what we on this side of the House want to know is that the scope of any planned activity is limited. When I look at clause 151A I am not certain I get that especially because we have references within clause 151A back to earlier clauses. As Moana Mackey said we were hoping that the Minister for the Environment would be able to get up today and explain to us how clause 151A works in with the earlier clauses around assessments. We have had some comment on that from the member who has resumed her seat but I do find it difficult to accept that this could not have gone back to the Local Government and Environment Committee to clarify it because I suspect that in future years we are going to have to come back and do just that. 
I just want to speak about clause 149A before I come back to new clause 151AA. Clause 149A is around existing petroleum activities becoming discretionary. I want to note particularly that what happens in clause 149A is the overriding of clause 15 of the bill. That is where our concerns start because clause 15 of the bill is a very important clause within the bill. It actually gives the powers to the Environmental Protection Authority around what restrictions there should be. These are the kinds of things that people would like to see in any piece of legislation that comes through to this House where we are actually trying to make sure that we have clear rules and clear guidelines for everybody involved. 
I know we are not supposed to refer back to parts but it is relevant because subclause (5) of the amended clause 149A overrides clause 15 which has already been passed and is around the restrictions on work in the exclusive economic zone. It is around things like the construction placement alteration extension removal or demolition of structures submarine pipelines or submarine cables; the removal of non-living natural material; the disturbance of the seabed or subsoil; the deposit of any thing or organism in the seabed; and the destruction damage or disturbance of the seabed in a manner that is likely to have an adverse effect on marine species or their habitat. That is clause 15. 
Subclause (5) of the amended clause 149A overrides that. That is a very significant thing to be doing within a clause that has just arrived on a Supplementary Order Paper telling us that for existing petroleum activities we do not have to worry about any of that. That will be because there are already restrictions within the permits and the licences that people have but I cannot compare those at the moment. As a member of Parliament expected to look at this bill I cannot compare back with what those existing licences are. All I know is that we are about to pass—if the Government gets its way—a clause within a bill that tells me that none of those things matter any more and that for those activities all of those things are out the door. From our point of view the destruction damage or disturbance of the seabed in a manner that is likely to have an adverse effect on marine species in their habitat is a serious matter. So this is why we have a problem with these new clauses being dropped on the Committee by way of a Supplementary Order Paper because we should be able to go back and look at what the impact of this is. 
The last matter I want to raise is around the new clause 151AA because I think this is an area as my colleague Eugenie Sage has already expressed in this debate where we have got a whole new area around planned activities—not just existing activities—and these are activities with licences granted under the Continental Shelf Act 1964. The issue we have here is firstly that we are not talking about just existing activities. We are talking about planned activities but they may not even be activities as Eugenie Sage has said that have begun. These are licences that potentially have been held for some time yet we are expected to say “Well that’s fine they can just carry on.” That is not an argument about certainty. These activities in many cases have not even started yet and we are saying these activities do not now need to be subject to the new legislation that we are putting in place today. 
Again this was dropped on us at the last minute it was not discussed in the select committee it has not had the scrutiny that people would expect— 
Paul Goldsmith 
: You would never do that would you? 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Well Mr Goldsmith says we would never do that. I do not know that we have. Does it make it right Mr Goldsmith? Does it make it the right thing to do to drop something in the Committee in an area where everybody across the Committee wants to create the most robust law that we possibly can? That is the problem we have got—having something dropped on us where we do not know whether we are actually going to be able to create the most robust law that we can. 
So we have a concern now that we are creating two or three different regimes for planned activities under different laws that will not be under the new processes that we have agreed to today. That is inconsistent potentially dangerous and not what we would like to support. Unless the Minister is able or a member of the Government is able to stand and reassure us around new clause 151AA we do not believe that that is a clause that we could possibly support. Overall we think that this is an example of why the Government should send this particular Supplementary Order Paper back to the Local Government and Environment Committee to enable proper scrutiny. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 100 in the name of the Hon Amy Adams to Part 4 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 72 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 8; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 46 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 11; Mana 1 
Amendments agreed to. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 72 Noes 48. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 4 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 72 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 8; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 46 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 11; Mana 1. 
Part 4 as amended agreed to. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 72 Noes 48. 
Schedule not agreed to.  
Clauses 1 and 2 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 We come to the title and commencement debate and it is interesting when we look at the title of this bill the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill. If only that were true—that what this bill was entirely focused on relevant to the title were the environmental effects. What we have heard throughout the debate on this bill particularly in this Committee stage is that there is a willingness on all sides of the House to ensure that we come up with a piece of legislation that manages environmental effects as the title of this bill suggests it should. But the problem we have now got is that the bill that is in front of us today has reached such a point that although it is good it is not good enough. It is good in the sense that we now are managing environmental effects as the title suggests by making for instance the purpose clause more consistent with the Resource Management Act. That is a step towards managing environmental effects as the title would tell us the bill does. But it is a step not far enough in terms of being consistent with our international obligations in terms of making sure that we have a robust regime that reflects the concerns of New Zealanders about the management of the marine environment. 
The game has changed since this bill was given its title and I note that the commencement date in clause 2 has been pushed out by a year of course. What we know is that in the time that has elapsed since this bill originally began life under a previous Labour Government the bill changed in a number of ways when the National Government got hold of it. We know that concerns among the public about how environmental effects should be managed—that is the title of the bill—have changed. People have been through the experience of the Gulf of Mexico people have been through the experience of the  
Rena 
 and they realise that we need to manage environmental effects in a far more robust way. So giving this bill this title would seem on the surface to some people to be acceptable but actually in reality it does not meet properly the goal that it set itself in this title. 
On this side of the Chamber we would have liked the Government to adopt some of the Supplementary Order Papers put up by the Labour and Green parties. We believe that would have given the title of this bill some meaning. But at the moment unfortunately it is mis-titled and it does not deal with the environmental effects of activities in the exclusive economic zone and on the continental shelf in the way that we would like to see. 
We need a more robust regime. We need to be using terminology in the bill that is understood that is clear and that makes sure that where the management of environmental effects is undertaken elsewhere in our legal process—i.e. through the Resources Management Act—that is reflected in the bill. That is reflected now in the purpose clause; it is not reflected in other parts of the bill where Labour and the Greens proposed amendments that would have made it happen that way. So I think the title of this bill is in fact misleading. It does not manage environmental effects in the exclusive economic zone sufficiently to give New Zealanders the confidence that any activity that takes place there will be alongside a robust regime. That is what all parties I believe in this Chamber set out to do. 
The Government has improved the bill that it introduced but it has not taken it far enough for the Labour Party to be able to support this bill. Despite things like the penalty provision being extended which is a good thing what we now have is a piece of law that still is inconsistent with our international obligations still has too much uncertainty inside it has new provisions introduced by way of a Supplementary Order Paper that we do not know the exact meaning of and as a result fails to meet the test of the title that it has been given. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I am going to take only a short call on the title clause. The title is entirely appropriate for the bill the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill. I want to respond briefly to the contribution that was made by Grant Robertson. It can be broadly summarised as that of an Opposition that is desperately exploring for some reason to oppose rather than any sort of principled stand around this being legislation. In fact the member acknowledged that this is good legislation and that this is a bill that is overdue. 
I would take the Opposition back to the fact that the gap in New Zealand’s environmental regime which this Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill fills was identified way back in 2000. Labour made no progress in getting a bill before the House in its 9 years in Government. We have made good progress and have got a robust piece of legislation to bring into effect and with the clause 2 provision it will be fully implemented by 1 July 2014. 
 I do want to point out that when this bill was introduced Labour said that it had two major concerns: inconsistencies with the Resource Management Act and the penalties not being strong enough. The Government worked and addressed those two concerns and Labour still says that it opposes. That in my view just exposes how vacant the Labour Opposition’s true opposition to this bill is. Those members are simply dancing on the head of a pin. If the Government then addressed their latest range of pedantic excuses I am sure that they would find some other set. 
Let me just take the point that Mr Robertson made that he objects to the relatively short I have to say Supplementary Order Paper 100 which has been introduced by Amy Adams. I would remind members of the Committee that 4 weeks prior to the 2008 general election on another very important piece of environmental legislation the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill the Labour Government of the day introduced an 800-page Supplementary Order Paper. It did not refer that back to the select committee at that time yet today it demands that this relatively short Supplementary Order Paper suddenly has to go back to a select committee. We do not accept that on this side of the Chamber. We say that that is grossly inconsistent. The member said that the amendments have been available for only 2 days. Actually it is dated 14 August and that is a great deal more than 2 days ago. In fact it is more like 8 days that members have had to study this Supplementary Order Paper and see— 
Moana Mackey 
: A whole 8 days! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well it is a very short Supplementary Order Paper I would say to the member who is interjecting. They are technical changes to the provision. They make the bill stronger. 
I would simply urge Parliament as has been urged by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment to get on support and pass this good legislation so that we can get this proper piece of environmental effects assessment legislation into place so that the Environmental Protection Authority can get on with this important new area of work. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Members the last votes on the Minister’s amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 100 to Part 4 and on Part 4 as amended were incorrectly announced. The results should have been Ayes 72 and Noes 46. The record will show the correct results. 
EUGENIE SAGE (Green) 
: 
 Nick Smith in terms of claiming that we are dancing on the head of a pin is misrepresenting the Opposition once again. He has obviously not read the substantive Supplementary Order Papers. There are eight from the Opposition seeking to make quite substantive changes to the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill. That is because yes it is going through because of the Government’s majority but it has a number of defects which the Green Party has highlighted from day one. They are in the purpose clause the gutting of— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Never satisfied the Green Party. 
EUGENIE SAGE 
: The member says we are never satisfied. No Mr Smith we are not satisfied because we want good robust legislation that will endure that actually talks about sustainable management of the oceans. Yes this legislation does that but it is a whole mix of factors so there is no clear direction to the decision makers about which should be given priority. 
There is no clear emphasis on protection and preservation of the marine environment which is part of our commitment under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. There are these planned activities. The transitional provisions are very broad and they potentially allow quite a lot to happen in the marine environment without the need to get a marine consent particularly with the commencement date potentially being not until 1 July 2014. The mining industry said to the Local Government and Environment Committee that it was very very happy with this bill. Once again this underlines that there is not enough commitment to environmental protection in the bill if the industry is happy with it. We have throughout the House’s consideration and in the select committee sought constructively to improve the bill. We still have not had clarification around the scope and impact of the transitional provisions and the planned activities and what can be allowed there. There is the potential for some quite serious oil exploration to occur without the need for a marine consent. 
Yes this bill will go through. It certainly is an improvement because we have not got legislation there at the moment but the fact that there is not the ability to appeal to the Environment Court will make it very difficult for the community to engage. The time limits on hearings will again mean that for very complex applications the Environmental Protection Authority will be under substantial pressure to deal with those quickly. Given that applicants will have been able to develop those over several years the bill is actually restricting the ability of the community to get involved in the way that occurs under the Resource Management Act at the moment. So yes it is an improvement on the status quo but there are a number of constructive changes that the Opposition put forward in its Supplementary Order Papers and it is disappointing that those have not been more seriously considered by the Government. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 It was interesting hearing the revising of history from the Hon Dr Nick Smith which he is particularly good at doing I have to say because he does it with such gusto that people think surely he could not be making that up. I know the member is reacquainting himself with select committees. What he perhaps is finding is that there is this interesting process called submissions at select committees where people who have expertise in a certain area come along and tell the committee what they believe is wrong with the bill or right with the bill. So when we got to the Local Government and Environment Committee and heard submissions from submitters what we found was that actually there were a lot more problems with the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill than we had realised at the first reading. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: But you opposed its introduction. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: We did because at the first reading we actually thought that it was not good enough and then when we got to the select committee we realised that it was even worse than we had originally thought. The Green Party actually supported it on balance at the first reading and again when we got to the select committee and heard from submitter after submitter saying how weak the bill was how inadequate it was the Green Party changed its position. 
A whole number of other issues were raised at the select committee. That is why the select committee process is so important and that is why when we come back to the Committee stage we see Supplementary Order Papers from Opposition members on a raft of different issues that were raised at the select committee that we had not picked up initially. I was not aware for example at the first reading that the bill was inconsistent with our international obligations. That was not something that I had considered. But that actually became one of the primary concerns as we went through the select committee—that it is not consistent. There is no certainty around it it would be tested in the courts and the Government could have done one very very simple thing. It could have used the language from the international convention that we ratified in the bill. That one thing would have made it clear and beyond doubt. We would not have to fight about it. It would be beyond doubt that the legislation was consistent if we had used the language of “preserve and protect the marine environment”. 
The Hon Dr Nick Smith said that Labour at the first reading was all about consistency with the Resource Management Act. That is true. In fact the one clause that needed to be more than just consistent with the Resource Management Act was that purpose clause. We wanted consistency throughout the bill with all the legal terms that were being used so that we do not use “favour caution” we use the “precautionary approach”. We use language drawn from 20 years of Resource Management Act case law so that people know what they are walking into they know where the goalposts are and they know what the thresholds are. Resource Management Act case law in international law is well understood. 
No one knows what “favour caution” means. It has been made up. It is brand new. It has no precedent. Do you know who will decide what it means? Lawyers and courts. This should be the “Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Boon for Lawyers) Bill” because that is what is going to happen. 
Hon Christopher Finlayson 
: Good. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Chris Finlayson says that is good. He has a vested interest that he is meant to leave behind when he enters this Chamber. But that is what is going to happen because it will be a court that ultimately decides. We do not need to be here. If the Hon Dr Nick Smith agrees with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea agrees that we have ratified it— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: This is consistent with it. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: It is not consistent with it. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Yes it is. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: It is not. If you wanted to be sure then why would you not just use the language of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea? Then we do not have to have this fight and we can all just get on Dr Smith. We can all just move on knowing that we are collectively consistent with our international obligations and put that one big argument which actually was the biggest concern that Labour had—that this is going to end up costing New Zealand taxpayers money as litigation happens at international tribunals with people saying that New Zealand has not met its international obligations. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: It is consistent. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: It is not consistent. One of the most telling parts— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: It is. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Why would you not just make it clear? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: What have the officials said at the select committee? 
MOANA MACKEY 
: They said that they had not had any legal advice which was astonishing; that they had not got any legal advice from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade that the Minister had not called for that before putting the bill together. 
But I am asking Dr Smith a very important question. Why can we not just use the language of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and then we are clear? Then we do not have to have this fight; we can all get along. We can all get along. We are consistent we are there we are good. Why? There has to be a reason why. 
 When you look at clause 11 around international obligations the language has been changed from saying that everything in “This Act must be interpreted” as being consistent with our international obligations to a requirement to move us towards and to continue to implement. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: It doesn’t say that. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: It does say that. It says “This Act continues … the implementation” of our international obligations. We are no longer consistent with them; we are just in the process of continuing to implement them. 
I think it is pretty clear that there is a lot of wriggle-room that the Government has left there because it does not want to be consistent with that international convention. That leaves New Zealand taxpayers exposed because they are the ones who are going to have to pay for any litigation that is taken against our Government by anyone who thinks we are not consistent with those obligations. It was a relatively simple thing to fix. The fact is that Dr Smith is getting so wound up about it and did not just say “Well let’s just fix it.” Apparently he is trying to say that we all agree consistency is important and we must be consistent with our international obligations but he is not prepared to do the one thing that would take this issue off the table and leave absolutely no shadow of a doubt that we have consistency. Instead he is going to do what he has done throughout the entire bill which is to use language that is entirely different from any legal language that has legal precedent and which leaves enormous uncertainty. 
People now do not know where the goalposts are and the only reason you would not align the language of 20 years of Resource Management Act case law the language that internationally has been understood and the language of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea is if you did not want it to have to meet that test. That is the only reason you would not do it and that is why it has been done. We know that on this side of the House. I mean the Government does not want to say it. We actually had one energy company that did come to the Local Government and Environment Committee and they were the only ones who said “Yeah we like this because it is way more permissive than the Resource Management Act. We are going to be able to get away with a lot more.” That is what they said to the select committee—and we knew that that was the case. It was nice that someone was honest enough to actually say it for once and say that this bill is going to be less restrictive than the Resource Management Act has been. 
The Resource Management Act of course has allowed the oil and gas industry to go ahead in Taranaki. It has not stopped it. It has not stopped it dead in its tracks. The Taranaki Regional Council came along and said and some of it has been included in the bill: “We like working with the Resource Management Act because we understand it and it gives us the ability to monitor it gives us the ability to enforce and also we understand what the tests are. We are used to dealing with it so we have no issue with those same principles and those same level tests being applied.” This is a part of the country that the Government consistently points to and says “Look they can do it so why can’t everywhere else?”. 
Well you know the council was quite happy with what was being proposed in terms of getting more consistency because that line at 12 miles is jurisdictional only. You jump across an invisible line in the sea and suddenly we have two completely different regimes operating side by side and regulating exactly the same activity. How is that sensible? That line is not environmental. That line is not about science. It is not about resource allocation. It is just jurisdictional and when you jump across it we now have a completely different regime for exactly the same activity. 
As you get further and further out to sea in the really deep waters—3000 metres and 4000 metres deep in the Raukumara Basin off the East Coast—I think that the public want to see that there is definite consistency with the Resource Management Act in terms of their ability to access the process and to appeal to the Environment Court. But on the environmental protection clauses the former Minister made the comment that he did not think the community needed that same level of engagement under the exclusive economic zone bill because what happens in the exclusive economic zone has less of an impact on them. 
I think that when you see the impact of oil washing up on the beaches in the Bay of Plenty—and I know the Minister did because he came to the Bay of Plenty during the  
Rena 
 disaster—you cannot tell me that that does not have an impact on communities and that they do not deserve to be engaged in the process in the same way that they would be if it happened within 12 miles before you jump over an invisible jurisdictional line. It does affect communities—very very deeply. 
I think that this legislation should perhaps be called the “Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Missed Opportunity) Bill”. We went to the Minister for the Environment Amy Adams and said “Let us find a compromise. As many parties as possible but particularly Labour and National can agree that this is how it is going to be. Let us lock down as much as we possibly can.” 
Labour will change this legislation. We will make sure it is consistent with our international obligations and provides the levels of environmental protection that the community would expect. We wanted to find a compromise with the Minister. We tried to do it with the Hon Nick Smith on the emissions trading scheme and then the Maori Party gazumped us. We thought we were actually close to getting bipartisan agreement on the emissions trading scheme and then I heard on the 12 o’clock news that he had gone to the Maori Party instead and done a dirty deal there. So I know that the National Party is not very big on bipartisan agreements but they are important when you have got incredibly important legislation like this. 
I know that a number of the environmental groups also wrote to the Minister and said: “Look obviously we would like it to go a lot further but we think that if you worked together and if you found a compromise we are not that far off.” So we are very disappointed. We met with the Minister and we thought it was a good meeting but then we had Supplementary Order Paper 100 dropped on us. It did not address a lot of the issues that we raised. Some of them we were never going to agree on and that is absolutely fine. That is the nature of politics. But we think that on a piece of legislation this important we could have locked down an awful lot more. 
A lot of the stuff that has been done here in the Committee stage could have been done at the select committee. In fact we asked for it to be done at the select committee and were told no. Government members did not want to discuss that and we were not going to change this and it has been changed. As I said I am very pleased to see the penalties increased. It would have been good to see the penalties increased across the board but that one increase we do support and that is why we voted for that particular part of the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper and of the bill. But this really was a missed opportunity because we open ourselves to legal challenges. We open industry community and the environmental groups up to enormous uncertainty because this now— 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 72 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 8; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 46 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 11; Mana 1. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 72 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 8; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 46 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 11; Mana 1. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
Bill to be reported with amendment presently. 
Regulatory Reform Bill 
In Committee 
Part 1 Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act 1997 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour) 
: 
 This piece of legislation the Regulatory Reform Bill is in the name I believe of the Hon John Banks—no. Well actually it is very interesting because the bill still has for some reason—I do not know whether this is an error—the Hon Rodney Hide’s name on it. That casts a sort of a nightmarish shadow over the debate for— 
Kris Faafoi 
: A throwback. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Yes a sort of genetic throwback. Well we have got the genetic throwback actually. He replaced Mr Hide in Epsom of course. This is an interesting piece of legislation because the legislation that we are dealing with was brought in in the form of an omnibus bill and was part of the outcome of the Quality Regulation Review which was led and initiated by the previous Government. It is a bit I suppose like a Statutes Amendment Bill in some ways in that it tidies up a whole series of small technical amendments to a whole series of bills. 
It is interesting because without getting into detail this bill when we last debated it was in a slightly different form. Part of that bill that Mr Banks brought to the Parliament was to repeal 31 Acts that were spent—spent. I recall that when I spoke in the last debate on this I asked the Clerk because I am not a lawyer: “What is a spent Act?”. The Clerk was good enough to inform me that it is effectively an Act that does not exist in effect. It has no effect on anyone and has no compliance cost on any business or any individual. So one of Mr Banks’ great contributions as he was hauled back out of the political crypt and then got into some very sticky and gooey political stuff over the last 3 months—the great reformer that John Banks is; the Minister for Small Business—was to bring a bill into this House that repealed 31 Acts that do not exist. I say and I said last time and I did mean it that that takes a certain particular type of genius to achieve that in the annals of the Parliament. 
I say this: it is interesting that this Regulatory Reform Bill does have some merit. It deals with for instance the reclassification of videos DVDs and those sorts of things. I went and visited the movie people who produce these up in Auckland— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Part 1. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Yes I am coming to Part 1 absolutely. I am dealing with Part 1 and— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Part 1 is about agricultural compounds and veterinary medicines. It is a long long way away from other things. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Well only in interpretation though I would say. You could say you have a few animal control and veterinary medicines required over the other side of the Chamber. The point that I will jump at—and I will use those as the examples—is that yes this bill does deal with a large number of technical amendments and some of them are very worthwhile. But let us get a bit real about it. This bill does not deal for instance with the big issues of reform in terms of compliance costs for small business. Yes it deals with some components that will assist some small businesses but it does not go anywhere near the big slash-and-burn promotion that Rodney Hide and now his successor the Minister for Small Business John Banks said they would do. They came in and said that they would slash compliance costs. What did they actually do? They did something profound. They changed the name from the Regulatory Improvement Bill to the Regulatory Reform Bill. That was the great campaigning the great slash into the future that Mr Banks did. Then because they changed one word in the title they claim credit for this whole process. 
I just say as I said in the first debate that this is a good process—a heavyweight process—but a lightweight content. This is dressed up—it has a bit of weight to the bill—as something magnificent something that will reduce compliance costs; millions of dollars will flow from this and reduce compliance costs for small business. The truth is this is an omnibus bill. It tinkers around the edges and makes some technical amendments in the areas that we are debating now with Part 1 as you said Mr Chairman but it in no way actually addresses the big issues that Mr Banks said he was going to come in and deal with—you know really cutting through compliance costs saving money for small business. The guts of it is 31 Acts that do no exist he repeals. No wonder Mr Banks is now sort of appealing to the deity for help because his contribution as a Minister is marred with scandal but even over and above that is marred with a lack of work ethic. There is a lot of puffing a lot of blowing but he presents a bill to the House that will do very very little in a practical sense for small businesses whether they be in the agricultural field or in other sectors—a lot of bluster a lot of billowing but it never actually delivered the goods. 
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 It feels a little bit surreal speaking today in the Chamber on a bill that repeals 31 Acts that no longer exist the Regulatory Reform Bill especially when the Minister who has charge of that bill John Banks suffers from what can only be called documented memory loss. 
Brendan Horan 
: Amnesia. 
CLARE CURRAN 
: Amnesia or documented memory loss as I choose to call it. Convenient memory loss not the Regulatory Reform Bill or any other bill in his name is his current claim to fame—forgetting whether he had met with Kim Dotcom whether he had flown his helicopter to Dotcom’s mansions and whether he had asked for been offered or received donations from that very same Mr Dotcom. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: We are on agricultural compounds and veterinary medicines—nothing to do with Dotcom. 
CLARE CURRAN 
: Well in the circumstances I think it would be pertinent to ask whether the Minister actually remembers what is in the bill given the documented memory loss. I was going to suggest that we give him a wee test and ask whether he can name the 31 non-existent Acts that are being repealed. 
The bill is not actually even his bill originally. It was actually originally a Labour bill in the name of the Hon Lianne Dalziel and then it became Rodney Hide’s bill. Now it is John Banks’ bill. There is certainly nothing wrong with this bill and Labour supports it as we have through all of its stages to date but most of the changes in this bill are small and technical in nature and are hardly slashing red tape. 
Although it is all about I guess a bit of tinkering our view is that perhaps Mr Banks should have made its passage more worthwhile by introducing his regulatory reforms for schools into this bill. They are regulatory reforms that as Mr Banks has been known to say on many an occasion are all about removing red tape and slashing red tape. The reforms are about fundamentally changing the school system and introducing charter schools which were not in the policy of this Government going into the election. They do away with a number of what I am sure Mr Banks considers to be trivial and pesky regulations which the Prime Minister might say people should not be hung up on—the fact that teachers without qualifications will be able to teach New Zealand children at those charger schools. 
Since that announcement I think it was described by one academic as being a case of you can put lipstick on a pig but it is still a pig. It was a rebranding exercise that clearly demonstrates that the Government has recognised— 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour) 
: 
 I want to refer to new section 44A of the Regulatory Reform Bill inserted by clause 11 which I believe is part of the part that we are debating. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Correct. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: It is very interesting because in this it talks about recognised agencies persons and classes of persons. Particularly I want to ask the Minister in the chair the Minister of Commerce what the ramifications of new section 44A(b) are because (b) states: “establishes a procedure for the recognition of persons or classes of persons who are to carry out specified functions and activities for the purposes of this Act;”. My question to the Minister—and I take it that the Minister in the chair the Hon Craig Foss is not Mr Banks and we take it that his memory is a lot better than Mr Banks’—is how it is that we can have a Minister of the Crown who has such a bad memory on all sorts of issues. 
This is very germane to this bill. How would he for instance recognise a person or classes of persons who carry out specific functions? How would the Minister for Small Business Mr Banks actually recognise it? Of course as we know through illustrative evidence the Minister—not the Minister in the chair to be fair—struggles to remember his own name or his reflection in the mirror whether he is on a helicopter or whether the brown envelope was a sack or a brown envelope. So I think it is very very germane. I would invite Minister Foss who I am sure has some insight into these things—or he may wish to take some advice from a specialist in amnesia or something like that; I do not know whether the Ministry of Health has those people—to state whether Mr Banks as the responsible Minister is actually accountable and can be held accountable for this particular provision in the legislation. 
I would have thought that in order to establish a procedure for the recognition of persons or classes of persons who carry out specific functions and activities for the purposes of this bill one would have to have a reasonable memory. One would have to know what day it is for instance or what one’s name is. One would have to recognise and remember these persons. I see Todd McClay nodding. He knows that this is an important part of this bill. You cannot have a bill implemented by a Minister who is incapable of remembering the basic facts—the basic facts—of any particular proposition. 
Brendan Horan 
: What time the House is debating his bill. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: My colleague says what type of house he is entering. What he had for dinner. How big the bodyguard was. How big the envelope was. Whether he did declare it or whether he did not. These are all sort of evidential propositions that would lead somebody to believe that a Minister who is in charge of this may not be able to carry out and be accountable for the particular clauses in this section and that is a worry to the New Zealand public. 
That is a real worry because I think especially in our agriculture and our other— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time has come for me to leave the Chair. This debate is interrupted. I shall resume the Chair at 7.30 p.m. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I want to acknowledge the Minister in the chair the Minister of Consumer Affairs. Sadly Mr Banks is not in the chair. I am sure the ghost of John Banks out of the crypt is emanating around the Chamber somewhere and I am sure he is here. I know he is here somewhere in spirit if not in person. 
Louise Upston 
: Point of order— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Yes a point of order and the member does not need to tell me what it is. I did give the member a look. He will desist from making references to the absence of people even if it is by implication. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I want to go back to where I concluded which was—I know my colleagues over there are interested in this—where we talk about new section 44A in new Part 3A “Recognised agencies persons and classes of persons”. This is an interesting piece of legislation because this was a piece of legislation developed by the Labour Government. It is akin I suppose to a Statutes Amendment Bill. It is an omnibus bill and it deals with a whole lot of technical amendments. 
The point I made before the break was that the bill if you look at it is actually in the name of—and I can refer to his absence—the Hon Rodney Hide “The Ghost Who Walks”. It is still in his name in the printed version. Maybe there has been a mistake. Mr Chairperson you might want to take advice from the Clerk. But you know he is “The Ghost Who Walks”. It is still in the Hon Rodney Hide’s— 
Hon Simon Bridges 
: Famous columnist. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I am sorry? 
Hon Simon Bridges 
: He’s a famous columnist. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Yes apparently so—apparently so. 
What I say is that this is a heavyweight process developed by the previous Government to deal with a whole set of issues but sadly the Minister who inherited the bill the Hon John Banks—bit of an oxymoron that—came and made the same claim as his predecessor the Minister for Small Business who was then the Hon Rodney Hide that he was going to slash through red tape. Sadly this is mere tinkering—mere tinkering. For instance we know that as part of this legislation it repeals 31 spent Acts. 
As I said before the break at the last debate we had some weeks ago—because we know the Government has hidden this. Since Mr Banks has had his troubles it has been “deep six” buried hot riveted and welded down because the Government did not want anything with John Banks’ fingerprints all over it. Suddenly the police have said: “Well we know he’s got a bad memory.” He was not sure whether it was a sack or a brown envelope but he is back out of the crypt in the land of the living. We are going to deal— 
Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take a call on this Regulatory Reform Bill and I also want to acknowledge the Minister John Banks for bringing this bill to the House. It was Rodney Hide’s bill originally but John Banks is continuing the good work that Rodney Hide did in the last term. It is about making New Zealand a better place to do business it is about making New Zealand a better place to live in and it is about improving the lives of all New Zealanders. The changes may seem small to some across the aisle there but to the industries that this bill impacts to the people whom they employ and to the consumers who buy their products they are significant indeed. 
This bill as has already been stated here tonight is about getting rid of unnecessary regulations and about making it easier for businesses to do business. 
Brendan Horan 
: Speak up. 
Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA 
: I want to thank Brendan Horan over there. He did not turn up to the rugby on Saturday after spending 1 minute on the field 2 months ago—he smiles over there—but his leader turned up and gave a speech without playing the game. But coming back to this bill we all know what the problem is. It is about the effects that outdated and irrelevant regulations continue to have on our economy. It is about growing the economy because our Government believes in focusing on the things that matter. It is not about gay marriage. It is about regulations. It is about jobs opportunities and the things that matter to New Zealanders whether it be health or education. I am pleased because in my electorate of Maungakiekie we have got companies that actually welcome this bill. I go around and talk to these companies. Last week I was at NCI packaging in Mount Wellington and the one thing they said to me was: “It’s about getting rid of compliance regulation.” Such regulations burden businesses unnecessarily and are ineffective. 
I want to come to the bill—I want to come to the bill. There is amendment to the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act 1997 which Mr Cosgrove did not talk about but I want to say what it does. The Regulatory Reform Bill provides for greater efficiency and cost-effectiveness under the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act 1997. What does it do Mr Cosgrove? Mr Cosgrove did not tell us in the last speech but what it does is it will remove the requirement for product manufacturers’ details to be included on the public register. That is one thing that it does. 
Secondly it also allows the Director-General to cancel non-compliant and obsolete trade name product registrations where those registrations and any required prerequisite approval for the product or a specific component or ingredient of a product have been revoked under other legislation. He has got that bit right. Mr Cosgrove has got that bit right. But it is also about where the registrant cannot be located or where non-compliance continues to follow suspension of the product’s registration. That is some of the stuff in Part 1 that we are amending. 
These amendments will also remove requirements that are unnecessary and excessively costly. How much is it? It is $50000 per year under this part of the bill—$50000 per year. Again they might scoff at that amount but that amount is still significant when you think over the long term of the amount of money that will be saved under this part of the bill. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: How much? How much? 
Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA 
: I said it is $50000 per year. Please listen when I speak; I give Mr Cosgrove the respect of listening to him when he speaks. 
So these amendments will really increase the consistency across food safety - related legislation and will reduce red tape costs. The ability to recognise a class under this Act will reduce potential compliance costs and minimise the disincentive for applicants to become recognised. That is what the bill does I say to Mr Cosgrove if he was wondering because he did not refer to the bill. 
Much of the poor regulation if I can summarise afflicts our businesses right across the board. Some of the regulations that we have had to amend certainly under this administration the National administration have been mistakes made under the previous regime. 
Hon Members 
: Oh oh! 
Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA 
: Oh and they laugh. Let me point out another piece of legislation that we had to amend under the last term. There was the financial advisers and financial service providers legislation— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Hang on—relevance? 
Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA 
: —just as an example to draw an analogy about what we are doing compared with what the Labour Government did. We had to clean up this legislation because the finance company failures were hurtful. We had to make up for the mistakes that were made under the last Government. When we came in in 2009 we said that we would make two major commitments—two major commitments that pertain to Part 1 of the bill. We said that we would introduce new regulation only when we were satisfied that it is required reasonable and robust. I refer to the financial advisers legislation and I refer to the financial service providers legislation because in 2008 that legislation was passed and we had to amend it almost immediately. 
 The second part of our reform agenda was that we would review existing regulations in order to identify and remove requirements that were unnecessary ineffective or excessively costly and that is what this bill does. This bill amends those costly regulations that were put in under the last Government. So this is another promise by the National Government that we are fulfilling. 
Just to summarise this is another promise that we are fulfilling around reducing the costs of compliance reducing bureaucracy reducing red tape and promoting jobs and opportunities for all New Zealanders. That is what this National Government stands for. Thank you. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The Hon Clayton Cosgrove. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour) 
: 
 I know—sadly Mr Chairperson there is no one else but me. I have got to say that that was a stunning speech. That was a stunning speech because poor old Sam Lotu-Iiga was brought out as the sacrificial lamb tonight to say that this Regulatory Reform Bill is a stunning bill because do you know what it does? It saves 50000 bucks a year! That is spread over however many small to medium sized enterprises there are. That is a lot of money to the average Kiwi I accept that and it is spread over the thousands of small to medium sized enterprises in this country. Poor old Sam Lotu-Iiga was reeled out. He drew the short straw in the caucus tonight. He is on the ginger ale. He has been told “Come down and try to justify this.” A bill from a Minister for Small Business who— 
Hon Member 
: By Banksy. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: —in the name of his predecessor “The Ghost Who Walks”—Rodney Hide—who came in like Rodney Hide and said that he would slash through compliance costs. As I said some weeks ago Mr Banks must have been affected mortally by his officials who told him to come down. This was the big hit for John Banks because within this legislation we have 31 Acts that are going to be repealed which are spent Acts and which effectively do not exist. I think it takes a certain amount of intelligence and class to come up with a policy where you come down to the nation’s Parliament to expunge from the books 31 pieces of legislation that have no effect on anybody have no compliance costs and have no effect on any business—that takes a special type of person in my humble view. Then Sam Lotu-Iiga says: “The Government works on the things that matter.” Well by God can I ask the member what contribution is made by expunging from the books 31 Acts that effectively do not exist? Can I ask the member what contribution to small business is being made by saving a paltry $50000 per year—a paltry $50000 per year? 
But I want to turn to a very interesting section: new section 44A(b) in clause 11 and I did allude to this previously in the evening— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Order! That is in Part 3. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: No I think if you check with your predecessor Lindsay Tisch he ruled—and I made a speech on this—that this is part of Part 1. So with respect until you have taken advice I will keep going. 
What we have got is section 44A(b) and what that states is that new Part 3A “establishes a procedure for the recognition of persons or classes of persons who are to carry out specified functions and activities for the purposes of this Act;”. Effectively what that means is you have got to have a damn good memory to recognise persons who have specific functions to carry out the Act. The difficulty we have is there is a lot of not only anecdotal evidence but quasi-judicial evidence I would wager to say about the Minister in charge of this bill. This is not the Minister in the chair Simon Bridges whose great policy that he brought to the select committee was based on clamping. I have said he is a great clamper this man—an absolutely great clamper. Wheel clamping was his great policy so I do not direct my comments at that member. I direct them to John Banks the Minister who owns this bill. 
The Minister who is accountable for this bill has to have a damn good memory in order to recognise agencies persons and classes of persons. The difficulty we have with this is that the Minister for Small Business John Banks cannot remember his own name. He cannot remember his own reflection who he is whether it was a sack or a brown envelope how big the bodyguard was whether it was a helicopter a Learjet or a MiG-16 what house he was in how big it was or how big the bodyguard was. So if the Minister who is accountable for implementing the provisions of section 44A(b) cannot remember his own name then I have a question for the Minister in the chair. I know he will have done some work on this. He will have consulted the Ministry of Health in respect of what one does in respect of amnesia. He will have consulted those officials those officials in high office and he will have an explanation for us. 
So I ask the Minister: can he give us a guarantee that the Minister administering this bill will recognise agencies persons and classes of persons under section 44A(b) who have specified functions and activities for the purposes of this Act? That is what worries the people of New Zealand. You cannot get $250000 a year the BMW the warrant the flash house and all the baubles of office if you cannot remember your own name. You are actually running a country here. This is serious. I say to Mr Banks and to the Minister in the chair that we would like an assurance around this. But I say in all seriousness that the Minister came in and said: “Well I am going to slash through compliance costs. I am going to make the big breakthrough. I am the impact player for the Parliament and this is lightweight lightweight content in a heavyweight process.” The heavyweight process was actually initiated by the last Government. 
I am sure Mr Banks will make a contribution tonight. I am sure he will be itching to given that he has had his clearances given that his memory has returned and given that he knows where he is who he is what he is and how much he took. I am sure he will wish to take a call now. I say to Simon Bridges to not be afraid Minister to vacate the chair for Mr Banks. Do not be afraid to do that because I know that this Parliament will want to hear from him. This Parliament will want assurances from him. But actually this Parliament will want to know why it is that he brings this sort of technical bill—after how many months in office—as the big hitter for ACT who was going to deregulate and to slash through red tape. This is the best he can do. 
I will acknowledge that there are a few pages in this bill. It probably weighs—I do not know—a quarter of a kilogram. It is 144 pages plus Supplementary Order Papers. There has been a bit of work in this a bit of ink and a bit of paper. But what does it actually do? Well the best we have heard is from Sam Lotu-Iiga and I will say that I feel sorry for Sam Lotu-Iiga. I really feel sorry for him. We have all been in his place where the whips have told us “Come down. It’s your turn. You’re out on the pole. They’re going to have a peck at you. They are going to have a go at you. But it’s your turn to take the hit for the Government and try to justify this.” We have all been there. Fair enough. And I like Sam. He is not a bad bloke. But I say this: the best he could do was say this bill will save $50000 per year. Well how many small to medium sized enterprises do we have in this country? Hundreds thousands of small to medium sized enterprises. Well if you spread 50 grand over all of them it is not a big contribution. 
I just say to the Government that he talked about growth did my colleague across the aisle. He talked about growing the economy—all objectives that we across the Chamber want to achieve. But I have got to say is this it—is this the 121st point of the 120-point plan? Is this the new one? Is this the big hit? Is this the best the Government can do? I know that it has buried this legislation. It has buried section 44A. It has buried the whole thing. We know for instance because I talked to the Hollywood guys that this legislation has cost the film producers $50000 a week every week because the classification issues have not been dealt with. The Government sacrificed them because it did not want any legislation with John Banks’ fingerprints on it. It did not want a profile for him. So suddenly after he has got his alleged clearances it is back in the Chamber and I know that the Minister will be itching—itching himself probably—to take a call in this debate. He will want to take a call. He will want to actually justify what he has done to earn his pay because I have got to say as an ex - small business person myself that this is piffle. This does nothing to help small business. 
It will help the Hollywood guys. It will save them $50000 a week and that is fair enough. That is a good thing. But for every carpenter plumber sparkie and small business person out there this is nothing. The Government is prepared to stand up—and we will keep the speeches; we will keep Sam Lotu-Iiga’s speeches—and say: “This is the best we can do. This is the best we can do thanks to John Banks.” I know Sam is going to go out to all these small businesses and hand them a copy of this bill and say: “Don’t you feel good about the National Government? Don’t you feel good about us? You should thank us. You should go down on bended knee and thank the National Government because this is what we have delivered for you.” Well I have got to say to my colleague over there that I sympathise. I would be saying to the whips: “I want leave for a month after this. I have made the ultimate sacrifice defending the indefensible.” And you have got to ask why it is that the Minister John Banks in the last few hours has not taken a call. Even “Cue Ball” over there is willing to have a go but Mr Banks will not take a call. 
If you are so proud of your performance if this is the big hit for small businesses if you are going to be carried aloft in every province of the country by the chambers of commerce saying what a wonderful human being and what a great man you are then surely as a Minister you would come down and take a call. Well I call on Mr Banks to take us through in detail how much it is going to save small business how many when—all those things. Because at the moment there will be a few people in agriculture reasonably happy about this for the odd label but your average Joe your average Kiwi on Struggle Street in a small business knows what this is. I said in the last contribution I made that this is bull—high-quality bull but it is bull none the less. New Zealanders and small businesses can smell it they know it and they know when they are being conned. I say to the National Party for God’s sake have some sort of righteous indignation over this. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 It is very difficult to follow on from that incredible contribution from my colleague Clayton Cosgrove but I do want to follow on from him because I think he has absolutely nailed the core issue here. I was the chair of the Commerce Committee when this Regulatory Reform Bill which has taken such priority from this Government was referred to our committee on 15 February 2011. We set a closing date for submissions of April Fool’s Day 2011. We received and considered 20 submissions from interested groups and individuals and we heard six submissions. The Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill was referred to the Commerce Committee on 17 February 2011. The closing date for submissions on that bill was also April Fool’s Day 2011 and we did not receive any submissions on that bill. We were able to report this bill back in good time and yet it has taken until now until this date—and I am not even sure what date we are up to now— 
Hon Member 
: 22 August. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: —22 August 2012 and somehow this has become the Government’s top priority. I think that my colleague has actually identified one of the major problems that we have with this bill. 
I have been at a conference today. The New Zealand Council for Infrastructure Development has had a very good conference today. I had the pleasure of hearing Rodney Hide speaking. Rodney Hide is of course the person whose name still appears on this bill because this bill was introduced by the Hon Rodney Hide. He made some interesting comments which I think are very relevant to this bill. He said that when he was in the Government he proposed that he should take control of all council budgets as the Minister of Local Government but that his Cabinet colleagues were not as “ballsy” as him. That was the description that he gave to the meeting today and it was greeted with a degree of incredulity—if that is the right word to use—in responding to such an assertion that Cabinet colleagues were not as ballsy as him to take all of the finance responsibilities off local government. When we actually look at what this former Minister did in practice he introduced the regulatory reform bill that did what this bill does which is very little indeed. I think my colleague Clayton Cosgrove has described that very well. So what we are seeing here is the Government trying to push this forward as a major innovation in a number of areas and yet we have had almost no examples from the speakers for the Government in support of this particular piece of legislation. 
Of course Part 1 amends the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act 1997. I recall that this was the part of the bill that attracted some of the submissions and I think we actually heard a couple of those submissions. People were somewhat concerned at some of the amendments that were being suggested that may in fact involve the Director-General not being required to consult in a way that one would expect the Director-General to consult. 
But before I come to the specifics of this particular part I just want to comment on the point that was made by a number of those who submitted on the legislation as a whole which was that in many respects people were left with the concern that there was not proper attention being applied to the individual amendments to the particular pieces of legislation. I actually reject that assertion because I think that the concept of a regulatory reform bill—we would call it a regulatory improvements bill—is a very very good concept because what it does is it enables Parliament to deal with issues that may be vaguely controversial and so do not necessarily meet the test of a Statutes Amendment Bill and to remove some of the regulatory barriers to business growth in an integrated way rather than on a piecemeal basis. If you could imagine that we were debating the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act Amendment Bill then it probably would not have made it to the House because the Minister concerned would not have been able to persuade his colleagues that that alone was sufficient to warrant a high enough place on the legislative programme. So the Regulatory Improvement Bill as we called it—or the Regulatory Reform Bill as it was renamed by Rodney Hide when he was the Minister in order to make it look like he had done something different from the Government—is actually a good process to enable these things to be dealt with. 
This particular issue though did raise some concern. The concern that was raised was whether it was going to enable changes to be made to the recognition of agencies without the degree of consultation that one would normally expect under the particular provisions of the legislation. So what the bill actually does is it not only enables the Director-General to “recognise that person as an agency that is responsible for the management and carrying out of specified functions and activities.” but it also gives the power for that recognition process to be overturned. So the grant of recognition is not a permanent grant of recognition. It is an advantage—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Order! [ 
Interruption 
] Order! 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: It is an advantage that ideally means—if anyone can hear what I am saying; I am getting the feeling that the sound system has been turned off. So I think that the point I would make is that it also enables the suspension of recognition to— 
Hon Member 
: See you Lianne. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Come on Mr Chair. Tell her. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: No I am happy to speak without anyone hearing what I have to say. [ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Order! I am sure that those people responsible for the sound system—we might be back on again are we? No. They are working on it. I ask the Committee to show a bit of decorum in the adversity that we are now facing without amplification and just bear that in mind. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Is it being broadcast? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I have no idea whether it is being broadcast. It is not being amplified. I cannot answer that question. 
David Bennett 
: Well nobody’s listening anyway. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Yeah nobody’s listening anyway. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: As I can hear my colleague across the Chamber I can only presume—I am afraid that the member across the Chamber said that nobody was listening anyway. I am perfectly happy with that outcome—I really am—because I do not actually feel that anyone is taking the issue as seriously as I believe they should be taking the issue. This bill does not allow for the suspension of recognition of recognised agencies persons or parties. This was the issue that was raised with the select committee and I think that as a result of that we have a responsibility to take it seriously. If we do not take these matters seriously then there is no point in people making submissions to the select committees. If they make submissions to the select committees then I believe that this House has a responsibility to hear what they are saying and to actually take advantage of that. 
So Mr Chairman I am not sure why one is looking at one in that particular way— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Well I can respond to a question the member asked a moment ago: is this being broadcast? The answer is affirmative. It is just the amplification that we are short of. 
Kris Faafoi 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. We have had word from people watching the TV that this is not being broadcast. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Well I am talking about radio. 
Kris Faafoi 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Television is not being broadcast either I am being told. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: It does not have to be. The Hon Lianne Dalziel—you have got about 2 minutes remaining. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Sorry? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: You have got 2 minutes of this call remaining. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The point that I was making is that the process of this legislation is an important one because it does enable us to deal with a range of regulatory improvements on a collective basis rather than on an individual basis. What I have been saying is that maybe the individual amendments may not have sufficient weight on their own to carry them across the line when one is talking about a legislative programme with the Government but what happens when you are able to collectivise them and put them into a single piece of legislation is that it enables the House to deal with them with them part by part within the context of a single piece of legislation and that can then cross the line. 
But the point that I am making is that this piece of legislation is not necessarily proceeding through the House in a timely fashion because we had it referred to us in February last year when I was still the chair of the Commerce Committee. There were people who made submissions on this who actually expected that this process would be used in a way that would facilitate the passage of the legislation in a timely fashion but this Government has completely ignored it. It is not taking it seriously. We are not getting the calls from the opposite side that would suggest that those members are treating this in the way that it should be treated. We are taking it seriously on this side of the Chamber because we think it is a very very important piece of legislation not only in terms of the individual parts but also in terms of the collective of what it represents as a whole— 
Louise Upston 
: Tell us about the part then. Tell us in detail about the part. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I have told you about the part. It does not give the opportunity— 
KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am aware that there may not be a requirement for this to be broadcast on the radio and on television but I am just wondering because of the technology whether this is being recorded for the purposes of  
Hansard 
 and whether this debate should continue if it is not being broadcast. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I have had no indication that Hansard is under any difficulties and I assure the Committee that it is being broadcast on radio and that the television broadcast has sound. 
Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Consumer Affairs) 
: 
 I want to take just a brief call as the Minister in the chair. I want to say I have never heard a better speech from the member Lianne Dalziel. That is because I could not hear it. I also want to say that despite everything the other side has said this bill the Regulatory Reform Bill is a worthy bill. Actually it is important that we clear these sorts of statutes that have been sitting on the book that serve no purpose and that in fact get in the way of businesses. The statutes need to be taken off the books. We on this side of the Chamber wholeheartedly support this bill and think this bill is going to do a good job. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I think that the Minister in the chair the Minister of Consumer Affairs is actually mocking the reality of this situation because what he has referred to—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Order! I am sorry to interrupt the member but I have asked for some tolerance of the situation. Members will walk if they do not heed that. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: What the Minister did just then was to take a call and refer to the fact that a number of these statutes need to be taken off the book. That is the regulatory reform repeals part of the bill that we are debating here the Regulatory Reform Bill. I am happy you know because the Minister has raised that to respond to that. But every single one of those pieces of legislation— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am sorry to interrupt my colleague. There is a difficulty. I have just come down from my office and I have seen your rulings on the sound. I have come down to report to you that you are audible the Minister is audible— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I am—sorry? 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: You are audible the Minister is audible but for some reason on this side of the Chamber my colleague is not. Labour’s acting whip took a number of calls and they were not audible. I can also confirm for you that it is not only the television. It is also radio being piped into the parliamentary system. My question to you is simply this: the proceedings of the House— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Speak up. Can’t hear you mate. Speak up. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Order! 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Well there’s no point in having a point of order if we can’t hear it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Mr Henare I have cautioned you. You are on your last warning. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I cannot hear. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Right. The member will now leave the Chamber. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: What for? I can’t hear. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The member will leave the Chamber—you can hear that. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Only because you spoke up. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I am waiting for the member to leave the Chamber. 
Hon Jo Goodhew 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am just aware that it appears to us that—now my microphone has started working— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Yes it is working. 
Hon Jo Goodhew 
: —but other microphones have not been working. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Yes—I am waiting for the member to leave. 
Hon Tau Henare withdrew from the Chamber. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I do not intend politics in this one but I can clarify for my colleague that there appears to be a major problem unless it has been rectified since I walked downstairs. What I am saying to you Mr Chairman is that you interpreted that the radio is working; it is not. You are audible your colleague beside you is audible but everyone on this side of the Chamber is not. I have not heard a speech from your colleague—maybe they are—but there is a difficulty in that it is not being broadcast unless it has been rectified since I walked down to the Chamber. 
Hon Jo Goodhew 
: Mr Chair—oh I am on. But the member Tau Henare’s microphone was absolutely not on at any time. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: No that was not a point of order. I am not taking that as a point of order. I have made myself quite clear. I had direct eye contact with the member and he did resist me in a way that necessitated some action after a warning. I have made it quite clear—I am taking advice as I sit here so I have not got any predetermined outcome about this. I just ask for some tolerance from members in the Chamber and I am not sure what is happening on this side now. There is some life that has come back in on this side to the audio system. [ 
Interruption 
] I am on my feet. So I am just going to ask for some tolerance. It is an instruction that the House should be broadcast but not a requirement if you can understand the Standing Orders on that point. It is preferable—I have had a look at the Standing Orders. In the absence of that if we show some accommodation to each other we can hear what is going on in here. I thank the member. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Thank you because—[ 
Loss of audio 
]—in an appropriate way. My question which maybe you could answer is that if it cannot be broadcast in the media—i.e. television or radio—should that not be rectified before proceedings continue? That is one problem. The second problem is I—[ 
Loss of audio 
] Mr Henare has illustrated the third problem: some members cannot hear the contributions of others so is it appropriate that the Committee taihoa for a moment until the technical difficulties can be fixed? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Let me just tell members that the Standing Order I referred to is Standing Order 44(1) which states: “The proceedings of the House are broadcast on radio during all the hours of sitting”. Nowhere in the Standing Orders is there a requirement that says that if they cannot be broadcast the proceedings of the House will be adjourned. There is no instruction in that form. Having worked with the difficulties that we are in the Clerk has brought us a microphone which we will pass to any member who has the call. They can use a handheld microphone. That is the best we can do in the circumstances until it is rectified. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. With respect Mr Chair I do not want to in any way impinge on you as I think what you are doing is absolutely appropriate. But I think it is worth you seeking some advice from a higher authority—if you can hear me Mr Chair. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I think others should hear you. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Yes I will approach the bench. 
Hon Member 
: “Karaoke Cosgrove”. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I do commit to the Committee that I will not break into karaoke. I do not wish to impinge on you because I think you are trying to navigate through this. But I think there is an issue as to whether the House should be suspended until this problem is worked through. I am happy to move to recall the Speaker but if I do that I do not want any imputation put on the fact that I am challenging your integrity because I think you have acted absolutely admirably. But I would suggest and I am happy to move that we recall the Speaker to just get some advice on this. But I do not want to impinge on your integrity. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I will respond to that. We now have a microphone that works. I know that it is not the best that it has to be moved around— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Is it being broadcast? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Yes it is. You are booming loud and clear here and my presumption is that it is being— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: But on the television and the radio? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I cannot answer that question. 
Dr Cam Calder 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I have been able to follow the progress of this debate on television but I got the feeling also that some of the things that were being said by you Mr Chair were being broadcast as well. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Can I simply request the following: that if we cannot get verification that it is being broadcast through the normal medium could we seek advice from the Speaker on the premise that I do not wish—normally when the Speaker is recalled it is a negative conclusion on the Chair and I want nothing drawn from that. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: That is understood. The member has only to move that the Speaker be recalled. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the Chairperson report progress to obtain the Speaker’s ruling regarding the failure of the sound system and whether the Committee could proceed while not being broadcast. 
Motion agreed to. 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: No we have now moved to recall the Speaker. We are past that. 
House resumed. 
Speaker Recalled 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Mr Speaker the Committee finds itself in—[ 
Interruption 
] Is this microphone going? Mr Speaker I think the technical difficulties that the Committee has been enduring are now apparent by the activities that took place when you came in. About 15 minutes ago there was a bit of a pop and the sound went dead in here. I asked for the Committee to show some tolerance and by and large it did that but then we became aware that various parts of the Chamber were being broadcast on radio and on TV without pictures or at least that is what was reported. [ 
Interruption 
] Order! Oh sorry Mr Speaker. Consequently an issue has arisen: Standing Order 44(1) which states: “The proceedings of the House are broadcast on radio during all hours of sitting …” became a bit of an issue. We are not entirely sure in how many positions around the Chamber that was happening. The Clerk arrived with the temporary microphone which I have now seen. We are still not exactly sure how widely this is being broadcast. As you are aware sound is being amplified inside the Chamber. So it was determined that your advice be sought on this and that possibly also gives some time for remedial action to take place technically. We look forward to your advice on the matter Mr Speaker. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour) 
: 
 I just reiterate my commitment: I have agreed not to sing. I want to say for the record that normally when the Speaker is recalled it is a negative on the Chair. The Chair has done an admirable job to try to navigate through this. The simple proposition is that I and other colleagues have ascertained that from time to time the Chair and the Minister in the chair could be heard. A colleague over there could be heard at one point. I sat up in my office after having made a speech and a number of colleagues the acting whip and my colleague Lianne Dalziel could not be heard audibly. A member was asked to leave the Chamber for a variety of reasons including perhaps that he could not hear. The question we simply wanted to ask and be answered—and this is no implication at all on the Chair—is whether the proceedings of the House should continue whilst there is no audible noise through Radio New Zealand the broadcasting system our internal system or the television broadcast. We have not checked the internet. It cannot be heard. It may be that it is sporadic or patchy through here but we wish to seek your advice in respect of that. 
LOUISE UPSTON (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I have not found anywhere in the Standing Orders that there is a requirement for Parliament to be broadcast. Surely the debate occurs within this Chamber. I would like to request that we continue. 
BRENDAN HORAN (NZ First) 
: 
 I think from the Opposition side we are most concerned that the Opposition is not being heard but not just in New Zealand because across the world people are live streaming. Admittedly in Finland and Hungary they have turned off from New Zealand but we do not want the rest of the world to think we cannot operate a simple sound system. So please take that into consideration in your ruling. Thank you. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank honourable members for their comments. 
Clare Curran 
: Mr Speaker— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Does Clare Curran wish to speak? 
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 The member made a very valid point around the importance of the internet. I think this has actually thrown into relief that the issue we are dealing with here particularly on this side of the House is that members cannot be heard. Whether it is just the Opposition side of the House or not it is unknown whether or not they are able to be heard on radio. The member made a very important point about the internet and the importance of being able to communicate the proceedings of Parliament via the internet. The other point I would like to make is that since the sound went off there have been issues of order in the House and one member has been ejected because of the amount of disorder. So I would ask you to take that into account. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I think it would set a dangerous precedent to state that unless Parliament was being broadcast by television and radio it could not continue with its important proceedings. The Chair of the Committee quite appropriately ruled that the Committee should be able to continue. In fact this Parliament performed for over 70 years without microphones and without radio and the precedent that would be set in the event that you rule that we must have Parliament broadcast for it to be able to proceed with the business of the House in my view would be quite detrimental. With a little bit of courtesy there is no reason why Parliament cannot continue with its important functions. 
ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First) 
: 
 There are two points. Firstly we seem to be in a vacuum here in terms of anyone with technical expertise who has come and advised us. Much of this seems to be done just from various people’s opinions. I am somewhat aghast that perhaps the Chairman and the Speaker have just simply not asked the technical people to advise what the situation is. Is it a temporary situation or could this be ongoing? If it is ongoing then obviously it causes a more difficult situation. Secondly I think the point that has been made by several of my colleagues is the fact that one side of the House still appears to have a reasonable amount of amplification although the Opposition side of the House does not. Therefore if it was evenly balanced it would not be too much of a problem. But the fact that the people out there who are listening to the broadcast are simply not hearing the Opposition viewpoint does compromise the whole debate and therefore on the basis that it compromises the whole debate and that only the Government’s position essentially can be heard it must put the whole debate into question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank honourable members. 
Hon Simon Bridges 
: Mr Speaker— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will hear finally from the Hon Simon Bridges. 
Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Consumer Affairs) 
: 
 I appreciate that we want to get on with this but it is a relatively rare point that we are not likely to deal with commonly. I concur with Louise Upston. I do not think there is a rule directly on this. I would also just make the point which is really related to the point that the Hon Dr Nick Smith made that this is a debating chamber and the central point of this Chamber is that members can hear each other. We can now do that with that microphone. Anything else I would suggest is really ancillary to that point. The other point I would make which relates is that because this is now being done by microphone it is not as if Hansard cannot transcribe and record this. It can do that. So anyone who wishes to following this debate will be able to see what is said verbatim. In fact people outside of this Chamber whether it is being broadcast live or not will be able to pick up what is said. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Honourable members I appreciate your restraint in this difficult situation. I must say—if I could be a little bit facetious for a moment myself—I was watching this while chairing another meeting and when I saw my colleague here the Hon Clayton Cosgrove with a microphone in his hand I wondered whether he was actually singing to the Committee. I was most impressed. I thought this was a new talent that one of my parliamentary colleagues was demonstrating to the Committee. Little did I realise the reality of the difficulties being confronted by members. 
I think some of the points being raised by members are very important. Were the situation to result in some parties’ contributions to this debate being heard in public and other parties’ contributions not being heard that would be a pretty unacceptable situation. That would result in the views of one party getting through to the public and another party’s views not getting through and I think it would be hard to argue that that was not an unacceptable situation. Some members have asked why this technically cannot be fixed up right away. Apparently one of the problems is that the system is highly computerised. Work is going on at this moment to try to rectify the problem. The first job was to find out exactly what was going wrong. Now work is going on to rectify it but it will not be done immediately. 
My advice is that sound is getting through on Radio New Zealand television and web streaming—members raised that issue earlier. But what would be needed from members is a preparedness to be a little helpful in this situation. Where the microphones are working—which seems to be more on the Government side of the House—that is fine but what I would ask the Chair of the Committee to do is to allow a little more time for one of these handheld mikes to be made available to all other members because where they are being used the sound is being transmitted I am advised and is being received over radio television and web streaming. 
So if members could just be a little more—well not more cooperative; you have been very cooperative so far. I ask members to be prepared to be that little bit cooperative during these difficult times and perhaps Mr Chairman you could make sure that the time on a member’s contribution during the Committee stage is set from the time the member has a microphone in their hand. I think under those circumstances as long as the public is getting equal feed from all sides of the Chamber—and that is I am advised what will happen if these handheld mikes are used where the desk mikes are not working—and if we just make sure time is allowed no member will be disadvantaged through waiting for a handheld mike to be delivered. And I ask the support staff here in the House to assist with making sure these microphones are delivered to members as quickly as possible. I really appreciate members’ preparedness to be constructive during a difficult time. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Thank you for that. I just wanted to touch on one point. You have been advised that the sound is audible through the normal systems—correct? My question simply would be this. If there is a failure later this evening or whenever what is the position of the House if that does drop out? I would just like some guidance so we do not have to go through this again. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Obviously we do not know whether that is going to happen but to me the issue that I would find—and this is me as Speaker almost thinking off the top of my head here—unacceptable would be for some parties in the House some members in this House to be heard by the public during a debate when other members cannot be heard. That to me would be an unsatisfactory situation. However members have also pointed out that there is no Standing Order requirement for the broadcasts. If in fact there was unfairness on what was going through it would be totally within the Standing Orders of the House to close down the broadcasts. As members have pointed out the rules cover the debate in this House. They facilitate the broadcasting of the debate. 
But to me the thing that would be unreasonable would be if any one member’s or party’s views were getting through to the public on important issues and other members’ or parties’ views were not. I personally would find that unreasonable and I stress I am talking off the top of my head here. It would seem to me that the only fair way to deal with that would be to actually close down that unbalanced broadcast. I do not know but I imagine that it is technically possible to close it down. I think that would be the most sensible way to deal with that situation. The Standing Orders do not require the broadcast; they facilitate it. If it is an unfair broadcast I think we should not allow an unfair broadcast. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The point of order that I raise is in regard to a tweet from Parliament today from @ParliamentNZ which states: “Sound problems hit Parliament again. Dalziel plows on undeterred and Minister in chair does not realise his mike is on”. And that was the point my colleague Clayton Cosgrove made when he came down to the Chamber which is that the broadcast system was picking up the Minister in the chair’s mike but not anyone else’s mike. That does indicate that in fact there is an unfair disadvantage in that some members are able to be heard publicly but not others. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I want to make sure that the Minister in the chair is aware of this issue. I think it is pretty easy to tell which mikes are working and I think we must make sure that before a member’s time has started the Chair of the Committee is satisfied that the member’s microphone is working and then— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: And it’s being broadcast. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Because if it is working it will be broadcast. If the— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Publicly. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: My advice is that where there is a microphone that is working it will get through in the public system. That is my advice. So if a member starts to speak—and it is quickly obvious whether the microphone is working or not—I would ask that the time be stopped until the member is delivered a hand mike. Then the broadcast is fair to all members in that their contributions to the debate are getting through in a fair and reasonable manner. I do apologise. I apologise to all members in the House. This is unsatisfactory. It is beyond the control I think of any of us but I appreciate very much your cooperation during a difficult time. I want to make sure no member is disadvantaged by it. And I ask the Chair of the Committee to ensure for me that no member is disadvantaged by it. 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is a separate point of order. Prior to your being recalled Mr Cosgrove was speaking in the Chamber and the Hon Tau Henare was called upon to leave the Chamber. I was sitting closer to both the Chair and the speaker at the time in the debate and it was not clear to me—let alone I would assume Mr Henare—whether it was a speech or a point of order that was made. We have heard from members in the points of order previous to this that there was difficulty with microphones on the Opposition side of the House and that it was extremely difficult to be heard. Indeed the Chair at the time said that he was able to see Mr Henare but actually to be able to see somebody and to hear the instruction on whether it was a point of order or a speech I would suggest are different things so I wonder— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I see where the member is going and I must point out to him and to save the House’s time that that is a matter for the Chair of the Committee. The Speaker cannot interfere in that matter. That is a matter for the Chair of the Committee. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not want to prolong this any further and I think it is probably a discussion that will need to happen in another forum. This is not the first time the House has had difficulties with the sound system. In fact we have encountered difficulties before where everything that occurred in the debating chamber was broadcast whether the member’s microphone was audible within the Chamber or not. I want to raise with you that I think this is becoming quite a problem and I would like some assurance that it is going to be dealt with finally so that we do not have these recurring problems. It has been a recurring problem the entire time I have been a member of Parliament—4 years—since I understand this current sound system was put in place. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I hear the member’s point. Every endeavour will be made to ensure that it does not happen again. Sadly modern electronic systems are not totally foolproof yet. But the member makes a perfectly good point. Every effort will be made to ensure we are not let down like this again. I do apologise to members. 
In Committee 
Debate resumed. 
Part 1 Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act 1997 ( 
continued 
)  
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The House in Committee for the Regulatory Reform Bill is resumed. I think the Hon Lianne Dalziel had the call and she has just over 4 minutes remaining. I think I should respond to ejecting someone from the Chamber. I have been informed that this microphone has been live the whole time. Whether or not it was having spent my formative years as a drum major I am quite sure the member heard me. The reason he got ejected was for interjecting while I was on my feet and he clearly can see even if he cannot hear. But given the complexities that the House has been in he is able to return to the Chamber at 9 p.m. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I just want to clarify the amount of time that I have to— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Four minutes. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Four minutes? So I have not lost anything as a result of this? OK just checking. I think that before this interruption I was identifying that the Minister of Consumer Affairs himself had spoken with probably a broad-brush approach on the whole regulatory reform repeals element of this legislation which he said gets rid of a whole stack of statutes that are holding business back. They are costing business money and they want to cut through the red tape in order to get things done. Not one single piece of that legislation exists in practice. This is a tidy-up piece of legislation that he is referring to which simply removes things from the books that are printed there in technical fact but have no practical impact at all. So it really is not a very good argument for the Minister to make and I am disappointed actually that he would make those assertions in this Committee because they really do not make any difference to the sum whole of any of the compliance issues that business might face. 
The removal through a repeal Act of legislation might remove some printed words from the statute book but it does not do anything practical to assist the small to medium sized enterprises of this country. I think to get up and say in this Committee that that is what this legislation is all about when in actual fact it does not make any practical difference—I am all for the tidying up of the legislation but I just do not think that the Minister should stand in this Committee on this part of this bill in order to make that point when I do not think it is particularly relevant to this particular part. I also do not think that it is relevant to the debate that we are having. It is not relevant and to assert that small businesses are going to be better off as a result of the changes that this legislation is making is simply an inadequate response from the Government. 
I do not think that the Government has been taking this bill seriously. That it could allow this bill to be introduced in February last year—I mean we have had a general election since then. I was the chair of the Commerce Committee and we treated this seriously. We actually dealt with it relatively quickly. We reported it back to this House in a timely fashion and this is what we are treated with. We are down to August 2012. So the Government does not think that this is very important and then we get these platitudinous speeches in the Committee from—what is the name of the guy from Auckland? 
Rino Tirikatene 
: Sam. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Sam Lotu-Iiga was saying that this is the best thing since sliced bread and it is a fantastic Government that has been able to deliver it. Yet you just cannot for a minute see that this Government has shown an ounce of interest in this particular matter which actually does verify the fact that this is not a piece of legislation that is going to have a major impact at all. 
That being said I am pleased with the approach. But it is the approach that we developed when we were in Government. We said you need to have a particular format for regulatory upgrades that enable a number of regulatory measures to be dealt with in a single hit rather than dealing with them as individual pieces of legislation. The reason that we went down this track is we knew that Ministers were going to struggle to get their colleagues to agree and that the agricultural compounds amendment bill or whatever it is—the amendment to the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act 1997—was not going to get the standing it needed. 
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I would like to speak to Part 1 of the Regulatory Reform Bill again and take a little issue with my colleague Clayton Cosgrove. Although I support the vast bulk of what he said on the bill in his previous erudite speech I would like to say that Labour is the party of restorative justice. It stands for restorative justice and rehabilitation. I think that is a really important point to bear in mind when we are talking about the issue of documented memory loss and the effect that that can have. 
In particular I refer to section 44A(b) in clause 11 and the point that my colleague Clayton Cosgrove was making around whether or not the Minister in charge of this bill John Banks could actually establish “a procedure for the recognition of persons or classes of persons who are to carry out specified functions and activities …”. It was unknown whether or not he could actually recognise those people and whether he would have the memory capability to do so. I think given that we know that there is a phenomenon known as recovered memory syndrome that it is possible that he could actually recover his memory and be able to fulfil and carry out his functions as the Minister in charge of this legislation. In particular I refer to section 44A(c) in clause 11 which says this part “sets out the duties of recognised agencies recognised persons and recognised classes and when their recognition can be suspended or withdrawn;”. The bill goes on to talk a bit more about recognition and the importance of recognition and recognised agencies recognised persons and recognised classes. I do take issue with what Clayton Cosgrove said around the ability of the Hon John Banks to actually recognise those things and whether or not he was able to. 
I would like to follow on from my colleague Lianne Dalziel who chaired the Commerce Committee that saw this bill through and did a very good job. I am sure that all of the erstwhile members of the Commerce Committee in the last term would agree that she did a very good job on that. 
The summary of changes includes quite an important issue—which we have not discussed tonight—around amending the Companies Act 1993 to allow companies to choose whether to use electronic shareholder participation. I suppose when thinking about this bill that that particular aspect of the bill is actually quite important and one would think that it would have meant that this bill came before the House a lot sooner than it did. I understand that a number of companies have wanted to use an electronic means for shareholders to cast a vote but because of their inability to do so under the current legislation they have not been able to. Just to set out the issue with that the Companies Act 1993 does not permit companies to use electronic technology for shareholders to vote during meetings nor does the Act permit shareholders to elect to receive notices and other documents from the company electronically. The impact of this bill—which as Lianne Dalziel has said came out of the regulatory changes that came from the previous Government—will enable companies to use electronic technology for shareholders to vote during meetings. This is 2012 and one would think that we could have sorted this issue out a couple of years ago at least. You have to ask yourself: “I wonder how many companies have actually been precluded from using that mechanism to get their business happening in a more timely and easily managed fashion?”. 
LOUISE UPSTON (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 20 in the name of the Hon John Banks to Part 1 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
Part 2 Animal Products Act 1999 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 20 in the name of the Hon John Banks to Part 2 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to. 
Part 3 Companies Act 1993 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The question now is that Part 3 stand part. Are you taking a call? You must call.  
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. One of the issues with the lack of sound in the Chamber is actually the inability to be heard when one stands and attempts to seek a call. So I would like to draw the Committee’s attention to that that that is an issue on this side of the Chamber which is the Opposition. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Yes I am very cognisant of what the Speaker said. I looked around to see whether any member was on their feet seeking a call. When that did not happen I proceeded. I will do that on each occasion. I said: “Is any member seeking the call? I will put the motion.” 
KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am not going to challenge the ruling that you made in Part 1 where I did try to seek a call at the very end of that debate. But I get the funny feeling that you may not have seen me stand up or heard me speak when I asked for a call on Part 1. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Yes I did see the member stand up and I chose to let the Committee determine whether it would take a closure motion. I saw that. I then was very careful on the next occasion as I will be now as I put the question that Part 3 stand part. 
Clare Curran 
: Mr Chair— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Are you seeking the call? I call Clare Curran. 
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 For the second time! I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I accept that I do not have the loudest voice in this Chamber but I have on two occasions now stood up here and said: “Mr Chair” attempting to take a call. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I did not see the member stand when I looked around. I did not see the member and I looked around. 
CLARE CURRAN 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I accept that I am not the tallest member in the Chamber either but I have on two occasions now stood here and said: “Mr Chair”. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: In regard to a call? Because I asked whether anybody was seeking a call. 
CLARE CURRAN 
: In regards to a call but I did not have the microphone and my point is that without the microphone the Opposition members in the Chamber are compromised unless they have extraordinarily loud booming voices or happen to be maybe around 6 foot tall. 
Louise Upston 
: If the member is referring to any calls in Part 2 clearly no one stood so therefore no one called in Part 2. We are now on Part 3. The member sought a call and she has been given it so I am not sure why we do not just carry on. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: That is precisely the point. I actually took the precaution of saying: “Is some member seeking the call?” and looked around. I did the same on Part 3 and I have acknowledged that the member has the call on Part 3 if the member wants that. 
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I would like to take a call on Part 3 of the Regulatory Reform Bill which under some duress in the Committee we are attempting to debate. The point that is to be made around this bill is around the fact that it achieves some measures that are going to ensure that we tidy up and provides some tinkering around a number of bills some of which are just being amended and 31 of which are repealed bills and bills that need to go. As we have heard from the Hon Lianne Dalziel and other speakers this bill came out of a process that has been ongoing for a number of years. It was the outcome of the Quality Regulation Review that was led by Lianne Dalziel during the former Labour Government when the first Regulatory Improvement Bill was introduced which was then an omnibus bill as well as we are seeing here today a number of years later. 
This bill was put in by the incoming National Government under the name of Rodney Hide and has now been transferred to the Hon John Banks. We have been calling all night for him to take a call on this bill because there have been a number of important issues and points raised around the impact of this the savings that it will make and I suppose the bigger regulatory reforms that it leaves out and that are not being covered in this bill which a number of colleagues have made reference to. We know that annual regulatory improvement bills are a very sensible way to ensure quality regulation but we have expressed a lot of concern about the process of this bill through the House and how it has been held up and whether or not it actually achieves anything particularly major. 
There are some issues that it does deal with such as with those 13 amendments to those particular Acts that it will cover and I was making reference to the importance of the electronic shareholder participation. Another change that it includes is amending the Films Videos and Publications Classification Act which will reduce compliance costs as well. We received a number of submissions on this during the progress of this bill through the House. This was quite an important issue which was referred to by submitters who had been requesting changes essentially to “the Films Videos and Publications Act 1994 since early 2009.” and stated that “The Film and Video Labelling Body … is currently permitted to cross rate film titles from Australia and the United Kingdom”. 
Andrew Williams 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The member with all due respect appears to have moved on to Part 5 of the bill. We are debating Part 3 at the moment so just keep this brief and to the point. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you.  
CLARE CURRAN 
: With reference to Part 3 of the Regulatory Reform Bill the Companies Act 1993 is one of the 13 Acts that are being amended. Actually there are a number of Acts that are being amended and the Companies Act is just one of them. The Companies Act is from 1993. 
Darien Fenton 
: What are the other Acts though? 
CLARE CURRAN 
: Well we have covered off the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act 1997 which actually Lianne Dalziel spoke quite knowledgably about I have to say. I think there has been some reference to the Animal Products Act 1999. 
I have to acknowledge to the member who leapt to his feet previously Andrew Williams that I did actually get ahead of myself a bit by referring to the Films Videos and Publications Classification Act 1993. There are a number of issues associated with all of these particular Acts that are being amended and then of course there are the 31 pieces of legislation that are being repealed because they actually do not exist any more. That does I suppose in the context of tonight when we are standing— 
ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First) 
: 
 I take a call on behalf of New Zealand First on Part 3 of the Regulatory Reform Bill. In particular just to bring some focus on this particular part of the bill I say that we support this in that it particularly focuses on the Companies Act 1993 in relation to the use of increased electronics for the servicing of documents on shareholders and creditors and for the methods of holding meetings in allowing electronic means of holding meetings. That is most appropriate tonight in view of the electronic limitations that this Parliament has. But this bill specifically allows for companies to allow shareholders and participants of the company to participate in holding meetings via electronic means such as audiovisual and other electronic communications. So it brings it into line with modern technology which is a good thing. It allows for shareholder participation by electronic means in terms of distribution of documents by electronic means as well including the likes of proxies and other instruments of a company for the undertaking of their business. This is a good thing. 
This part of the Regulatory Reform Bill is welcome. It just means that New Zealand comes into the 21st century in terms of what would be a modern expectation for companies to undertake their business and for commerce in New Zealand to be competitive on a global stage with competitors around the world. Therefore New Zealand First certainly supports this. It will help New Zealand be more competitive in global business. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 20 in the name of the Hon John Banks to Part 3 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Part 3 as amended agreed to. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It might be to the benefit of the other side but I am seeking a copy of the bill. It is normal practice for a copy of the bill to be on the Table of the House. It does not appear to be the case at least on this side. That is a distinct disadvantage for members if they not only cannot be heard but also cannot see the bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you to the honourable member and we will ensure that that happens. It is being organised. 
Part 4 Conservation Act 1987 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I have been addressing the different parts of this legislation in light of the nature of this particular bill that is in front of us today the Regulatory Reform Bill which is an omnibus bill. The omnibus bill that we have in front of us today was designed specifically so that parts like this could actually see the light of day. 
What we are dealing with in Part 4 is an amendment to the Conservation Act 1987. There is no way that the Minister of Conservation—and I am not sure who the Minister of Conservation was last year when this bill was introduced. Was it Kate Wilkinson then or was it someone else? Anyway whichever Minister was the Minister of Conservation last year he or she would never have been able to persuade the Leader of the House to place an amendment of this nature in front of the legislative programme of the Government ahead of a number of the other measures that it was pursuing. It was only by grouping a number of amendments to legislation in an omnibus bill—which actually I take some credit for as a former Minister of Commerce. I realised that there were a number of pieces of legislation that needed to be adjusted but which of themselves were not sufficient to gain a place on the legislative programme. Having been a Minister bidding for a place on a legislative programme I know personally how difficult it can be. So the idea— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: A very good bidder. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I was a very good bidder but I was not always successful. Therefore I felt that it was important to have a vehicle that enabled a number of Ministers to basically put these kinds of measures together in an overarching bill and to bring them before the House. They were never at a low enough level to qualify for a Statutes Amendment Bill because of course those have to be non-controversial and they also have to have essentially the consent of the whole House. You cannot have individual parties basically saying: “No we are not going to agree to that particular measure. We don’t want this change to the Conservation Act going through the Statutes Amendment Bill process so therefore we will not have it in there.” Of course that was the kiss of death—that was the end of it. Statutes Amendment bills enable those little tidy-up functions to be taken up on a regular and ongoing basis. 
This particular amendment to the Conservation Act 1987 would never have made the cut for a Statutes Amendment Bill because it actually had some elements of controversy around it—[ 
Interruption 
] No controversy actually. I suspect that the Green Party is going take a call on this particular part because I know that there was a concern that the Green Party raised on this particular measure when it was brought before the Commerce Committee. I know that some environmental movement individuals did make some submissions to the select committee. 
You know it is always difficult to know after having heard the evidence whether people felt satisfied with the amendments that we made in the select committee. Of course the people here in Parliament will have the bill in front of them and will see that we actually did not make any amendments to this particular part. So it will be very interesting to see whether people ultimately were satisfied with the changes. We did make a slight amendment in order to meet one of the concerns that had been raised. Essentially it increases the time around concessions applying in the Department of Conservation estate and I think that that was an issue of substance and it was an issue that did require a degree of reporting on it. 
One of the issues that I think has not been really dealt with in this debate thus far is the fact that there were a number of officials who appeared in front of the select committee every time we were dealing with this particular bill. They came from all the different departments in order to respond to all of the issues. When you look at the whole bill we had people coming from the Department of Conservation we had people from the Ministry of Economic Development we had people from the Department of Internal Affairs we had people from the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and we had people from the Ministry of Fisheries. Fortunately a lot of people were covered by the Ministry of Economic Development. We had Statistics New Zealand as well and we had Ministry of Justice officials. 
 The problem that I had certainly as the Minister who had spearheaded the process and then as the chair of the select committee was feeling a sense of frustration that all of these officials felt that they had to turn up for every discussion we had on every part of every bill. What I was trying to do was to get the different departments to maybe collaborate with each other in order to reduce the amount of input into the select committee which was the whole point of having an omnibus bill. [ 
Interruption 
] I did feel a sense of frustration. I think my colleagues are sensing how frustrated I felt. 
One of the purposes of the bill was to cut down some of that interdepartmental nonsense and just allow some of the different departments to actually come together and have other departments represent their interests on these particular matters. But the Conservation Act amendment is certainly one of those that probably did require the input of the department so I would not include that in my general comments. On that note I think that is sufficient on Part 4. 
EUGENIE SAGE (Green) 
: 
 Certainly the Green Party supports other aspects of the Regulatory Reform Bill but as Lianne Dalziel has noted we have concerns about Part 4. That is because Part 4 would allow existing concession holders to continue to operate even when the concession term expires during the process by which they are applying for a replacement concession. That is not so much an issue because there is a similar provision in the Resource Management Act and it does seem sensible because it prevents business disruption while the application is considered if you have an existing concession. But where the difficulties are is that it would also allow a concession holder whose concession term has expired and who has then applied for a replacement consent that the Minister of Conservation has declined to continue to operate until the Minister has reconsidered his or her decision. That potentially means that quite high-impact activities like mining—with the access agreements and the like and the facilities that go with the mining—could continue even though the Minister had declined the concession application on reapplication. It is the fact that if the application is declined by the Minister then it should cease. 
One of the major concerns about the bill is also clause 51 which provides for new section 48AA to be inserted around regulations prescribing time limits for applications. There is no provision in that clause that the regulations are made on the recommendation of the Minister of Conservation. Given this Government’s agenda—clearly flagged in the Department of Conservation’s statement of intent—that the department should increase business activity on conservation lands and increase concession revenue this clause 51 would potentially allow Ministers like the Minister of Economic Development to push the department to— 
Hon Simon Bridges 
: There is no Minister of Economic Development. 
EUGENIE SAGE 
: —for Economic Development— 
Todd McClay 
: There isn’t one. 
EUGENIE SAGE 
: —Mr Joyce— 
Todd McClay 
: Hon Mr Joyce. 
EUGENIE SAGE 
: —Hon Mr Joyce—push for regulations that constrain the department’s decision-making process. We are seeing two major tourism development applications for concessions in the Te Wahipounamu - South West New Zealand World Heritage Area Fiordland National Park—one for a tunnel and one for a monorail. They are very complex applications with a number of potential effects. The provisions here are for regulations to set out time limits to prescribe a time limit by when the Director-General of Conservation has to respond and to provide for the consequences of not meeting that prescribed time limit. 
Here we see the Government potentially introducing regulations to penalise the department in the same way that it has introduced changes to the Resource Management Act to penalise local authorities in terms of them not meeting the time limits for processing consent applications under the Resource Management Act. It potentially restricts the department’s ability through these regulations to properly consider serious applications and their impacts on public conservation values recreational values and ecological and landscape values on the conservation estate. 
In trying to be constructive here there is Supplementary Order Paper 23 which is in my name and which proposes some changes to clause 51 new section 48AA to provide before any regulations are made that they are recommendations from the Minister of Conservation. Also the Minister has had to have had advice from the New Zealand Conservation Authority which is the statutory body that provides advice to the Minister and has a range of representatives from organisations like the Royal Society the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society Local Government New Zealand iwi representatives and members of the public. The New Zealand Conservation Authority is a statutory body providing advice to the Minister and it would be a useful safeguard and a check on this power to constrain the department’s consideration of concession applications around time limits and other matters if that was on the advice of the authority given that these time limits are not set out in the substantive bill itself but are being done by regulation which the public cannot contribute to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I just advise members when they have finished speaking that they pass the microphone back to the attendants. Thank you. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Some time ago tonight around 10 past 8 or thereabouts I was asked to leave the Chamber. I seek some clarification. I was watching on TV— 
Chris Hipkins 
: Point of order— 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Actually this is a point of order. It is a point of order so sit down. Sit down. You sit down idiot. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! Can I just advise the member that I was watching when the member was asked to leave the Chamber and I heard the Chairperson of the Committee say that the member was entitled to come back in at 9 o’clock. I am happy to abide by that previous ruling. Right now where were we? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: As I was saying before I was rudely interrupted— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! Will the member please be seated. The member is a longstanding member. He knows that when it comes to a point of order it has to be terse and to the point. If we get involved in the politics it leads to unrest in the Committee. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Let us start again. At around some time about 10 past 8— 
Hon Annette King 
: What’s the point of order? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: What is the point of it? If you shut up and listen I will tell you. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Please be seated. Can I just say to members that I know it is a bit—what is the word; I am trying to think of a good word—antagonistic tonight because the microphones are down. I appreciate that and I understand it. But can I say to members that when there is a point of order on the floor it is to be heard in silence. There have been a number of Speakers’ rulings about what happens when they are not heard in silence. I call the Hon Tau Henare and I ask him to be respectful because courtesy is contagious. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: At around 10 past 8 I was asked to leave the Chamber. I was interjecting on Clayton Cosgrove because I could not hear him. All I said to Clayton Cosgrove was: “Speak up speak up I cannot hear you.” I watched the Chairman tell the Committee that I was turfed because I interjected on him while he was standing. Can you give me some sort of clarification on who might be right in this issue? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I just say to the member that it is in the past. It is gone. I understand where the member is coming from but let us put those things that divide us behind us and move on. I am sure the member is quite capable enough of actually talking to the member concerned and expressing their surprise at what happened and I am sure that something could be worked out. But at the present stage I am bound by what I saw when I was watching Parliament. The member was asked to leave. He did so correctly and there I would like to move on. But thank you for bringing it to the attention of the Committee. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Can I invite you to repeat your ruling using the microphone because there are those of us who could not hear you and of course it will not be broadcast as a result of it being unheard in the Chamber. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: To be brief it was basically to say let us move on and I am sure that the member is quite capable of raising the issue with the person concerned. So let us move on. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I thought that personalities aside vis-à-vis who is in the Chair this is a question about the Chair to the Chair. It may be easy for you to move on but it is me who has got a strike against his name. It was the Chair—not Eric Roy but the Chair—who turfed me. What I am saying and what I hold to is that I believe that I was being thrown out because of my interjection on the Hon Clayton Cosgrove whom I could not hear. I want to see if we cannot get some closure on that issue. It is not about Eric Roy; I can talk to him any time I want. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I just say to the member that I would like to refer him to Speaker’s ruling 79/1 and that is that the member is not in order in reflecting on the actions of presiding officers. I leave it at that. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. My point of order is not reflecting on the Chair. I am asking for some clarification about why I was turfed from the Chamber. You yourself said that you watched it on TV and what I am saying to this Chamber—so maybe I should take a point of order and seek leave to make a personal explanation which might work it out. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Well the member is perfectly entitled to make a personal explanation. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I think the Speaker’s ruling that you have referred to is absolutely the correct one. If the member felt that he had been in some way unfairly defamed or that a reflection had been cast on his character that was unfair he could seek leave to make a personal explanation about that but he cannot question the ruling of the Chair or subsequently come back and challenge a decision of the Chairperson. But he could indeed make a personal explanation if the Committee was willing to grant him leave to do that. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Point of order— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is quite right. He can seek leave so the member wishes to do that? 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I seek leave to make a personal explanation with regard to the incident before. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is no objection to that course of action being taken. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Thank you Mr Chair and thank you to the Committee. Can I make it quite clear that my interjection during the issue in the Committee earlier on tonight was because firstly I could not hear what the Hon Clayton Cosgrove was saying in his point of order—not during his speech not during anybody else’s speech but during the point of order. When I was turfed by the Chairman I was of the understanding that I was being turfed because of my interjection on Clayton Cosgrove. Given the situation with the mikes I am not going to apologise for asking the Hon Clayton Cosgrove to speak up but I want to say and to put it on record that any record of this event at around 8 o’clock should be expunged because I consider my record for the last couple of years to be very very good. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 23 in the name of Eugenie Sage to clause 51 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 13 
Green Party 12; Mana 1. 
Noes 106 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; New Zealand First 8; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 4 be agreed to. 
Ayes 107 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; New Zealand First 8; Maori Party 3; Mana 1; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 12 
Green Party 12. 
Part 4 agreed to. 
Part 5 Films Videos and Publication Classification Act 1993 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I would advise honourable members that Part 5 is debate on clauses 52 to 76 and the schedule. 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Chair and my thanks also go to the messengers this evening who have an extra layer of duties running microphones around the Chamber. It is my pleasure though to have the opportunity to speak to Part 5 of this bill the Regulatory Reform Bill. For all of the rhetoric that we have heard from across that side of the Chamber about how this bill is creating fundamental reform for the business community how it is cutting through red tape and how it is making the lives of small businesses that much easier of all of the elements of this bill this is probably the one where that argument may have some legitimacy for one particular industry. 
We heard at the very beginning much discussion from the member Sam Lotu-Iiga about saving $50000 per annum through regulation changes to—what was it? Animal or veterinary services or some other description. This particular amendment when put in place will save the Home Entertainment Association of New Zealand $50000 per week. Let me explain what this particular part of this bill does. It is one very small part found under Part 5. Clause 55 “Conditions relating to display of restricted publications” says: “Section 27(4)(a)(ii) is amended by omitting ‘affixed to’ and substituting ‘displayed on’.” This is the ultimate demonstration of unintended consequence in legislation. This particular small little clause means that when products are brought into New Zealand the Home Entertainment Association of New Zealand and parts of the music industry are not able to simply affix censorship details relevant to New Zealand on to the exterior of that product. Instead of just displaying it it must be affixed to the product itself leading to a very onerous process within the industry in order to do that. The simple use of “affix” instead of “display” is costing an industry $50000 per week. 
I would argue that that probably demonstrates where something like a Regulatory Reform Bill has a place in this Parliament. It allows us to quickly and easily rectify I think a consequence that no one in this Committee would intend because it is simply a bureaucratic nonsense: if you are displaying the censorship details then that should be sufficient whether they are affixed to the product itself or to a plastic sleeve on the outside. Surely this would have been the perfect vehicle to deal with this quickly and effectively but has it? Absolutely not. When did the Home Entertainment Association of New Zealand first raise this issue? I think members over that side of the Chamber may indeed be familiar with the fact that it was raised 3 years ago with the National Government. It was first raised not with John Banks—obviously not in Parliament at that time but this is a potted history; it was raised with Richard Worth who was in charge of this particular area of legislation at that time in May 2009. Since that time it was raised with Nathan Guy. It was then raised with Rodney Hide and eventually it found its way on to the lap of John Banks under the Regulatory Reform Bill the bill that was intended to swiftly move through Parliament areas of reform that are a nonsense such as this for this industry. 
How much is it then—quick calculation any of the Labour members—if we are looking at $50000 per week for almost over 3 years I think it would be? Well roughly we can apportion the cost of that Government’s neglect on this simple change down to $7 million—$7 million. Do you know that is almost as much as the Government spent on its roads of national significance publicity campaign—not quite but almost? It is more than what the Government has put aside in its Budget to deal with the recommendations in the white paper on vulnerable children. The industry has paid $7 million because that Government was neglectful in its duty to fix a simple area of nonsense of bureaucratic nonsense in our legislation. 
This Government could have dealt with it in another way. Let us not be under any illusion that somehow this was the only option that lay in front of the Government to deal with this particular area of law. Of course we have heard from my colleague Lianne Dalziel about other options that have existed in the past. Previously these kinds of changes would have been dealt with in a Statutes Amendment Bill potentially—a yearly omnibus bill that allows us to deal with substantive issues like this that are non-controversial. This would have been a perfect fit for a Statutes Amendment Bill. Why then I ask the Minister in the chair the Minister of Internal Affairs was this particular piece of Part 5 not put into a Statutes Amendment Bill 3 years ago when it was raised with Richard Worth when it was costing this industry $50000 per week? Why was it that that Minister at that time did not recommend that perhaps it might take some time to pull together this particular bill that perhaps some of the members ushering it through the House were more controversial members of Parliament and that it might not be the speediest of processes? Why did Richard Worth not raise that at that time and allow it to be put in a Statutes Amendment Bill? 
I would be interested in how many Statutes Amendment bills have passed since this issue was first raised in May 2009. Why did Nathan Guy not make that suggestion to the industry and indeed to the Minister of Justice at that time? Why did Rodney Hide not make that suggestion? Well I think with Rodney Hide we get a clue. I think we get a clue because at that point the Regulatory Reform Bill was—what was it called back then? It was called the Regulatory Improvement Bill or something like that. At that time regulatory reform was one of the main platforms that ACT had in this Parliament. That was one of the only platforms one of the only points of distinction that ACT members had as members in this House. The basis on which I imagine their coalition agreement was set was that they could have a Regulatory Reform Bill such as this. So it would not have been in their interest to suddenly remove swathes of their regulatory reform bill and put it into a Statutes Amendment Bill even though that would have saved the home entertainment industry and no doubt the music industry in excess of $7 million had that been done. This industry has paid $7 million for the ego of the ACT Party. That is what this comes down to: the ego of the ACT Party is the reason why this has not moved to another form of passage through this Parliament. 
I would challenge any member on that side of the Chamber to stand up and give me a legitimate explanation if this was a known issue why it was not dealt with in some other form much earlier in this debate because that is what the expectation would have been on this side of the Chamber. I have seen letters suggesting to Ministers that this be rushed through and it has stagnated for weeks at No. 16 No. 17 and at times at No. 20 on the Order Paper. And why did it stagnate earlier this year? Why did it sit there dormant even though it was considered to be relatively non-controversial even though it had support for instance on this side of the Chamber? Why? Well I would suggest that John Banks’ rather controversial time in this Chamber has actually hindered his ability to represent the people this bill would have a positive impact on through the passage of this bill through the House. 
As much as that Government may argue that John Banks is able to do his job as Minister with the cloud hanging over him over potential electoral fraud this bill proves that actually that is not the case. [ 
Interruption 
] If the member would like to challenge me on what cloud it is that hangs over Mr Banks then I welcome that—I do use the term loosely. But there is an impression that obviously the Government did not want to be challenged on whether or not Minister Banks was right to continue to hold his portfolios because if it was not concerned by that then it would have allowed the Minister to continue— 
Hon Member 
: Section 5 Part 5 please. 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: —to pursue his Regulatory Reform Bill and Part 5 through this debating chamber much earlier than it has. It is only now that we are discussing Part 5 after many many weeks of Mr Banks finally being somewhat out of the spotlight. And that I believe is the only reason why we are now here debating clause 55 of this bill in Part 5 and the conditions relating to display of restricted publications. I urge the Government to continue the passage— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I recognise the honourable member Andrew Williams and advise members that they can interject only on the person who has the floor at the time not on each other. 
ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First) 
: 
 I take a call on behalf of New Zealand First in relation to the Regulatory Reform Bill Part 5 which refers to the Films Videos and Publications Classification Act 1993. It is a little bit like Part 3 which we discussed a short time ago in relation to improving the electronic regulatory side and bringing new systems and new technology into being. This is the same application in terms of the film and video publications industry. 
In this respect it is very clear from the wording of the bill that what this allows for for instance is that the chief censor will establish an electronic register for this particular medium and for classifications—and this is from 1 November 2011—rather than as previously when the classification office used to publish a monthly list of such decisions. Obviously time has moved on. We are now in the electronic age and having an electronic register rather than lists being published on a monthly basis is a much more efficient method for the industry concerned. 
 Also the industry as a result of some of the changes in the legislation here will be allowed to directly print on to the publications rather than be required to affix labels. We are told that just that simple change of methodology of printing directly on to the videos films and other publications has the potential to have significant savings for the industry. We are told that in year 1 the savings to the industry will be in the order of $1.3 million heading towards $2 million by year 5. Therefore again this is a sensible piece of legislation that brings both efficiencies and significant savings to the film and video industry. 
We have said that New Zealand First will support legislation that is good sound and sensible legislation. This is another example of legislation that will help an industry that is very important to New Zealand—our film video and publications industry. It is an industry that does need a level of assistance in terms of being internationally competitive and being able to provide film video and other such publications to the people of New Zealand at an affordable price. Everything that we can do in this Chamber to assist the industry to do that in a more efficient manner is a good thing. So New Zealand First will support this part of the bill and we commend it to the Committee. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you. Just before I call the next member can I advise members that I have been advised that the mikes on our desks are now working so there is no need to have the wireless mike any more. 
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I would like to take a call on Part 5 of the Regulatory Reform Bill and I would like to say that my colleague Jacinda Ardern made some very good points about the amount of money that could have been saved on this issue on this particular part of the bill which is around film video and publication classification and how it is a travesty that this bill is going through Parliament only now. I have just done a quick calculation as to how much could have been saved and it is at least around $6 million or $7 million that could have been saved if this bill had gone through when this issue was first raised with Ministers. Essentially that represents almost half of the budget of TVNZ 7 which was canned just over a month ago. One has to ask oneself and one certainly has to ask the other side of the Chamber and the Minister in the chair the Minister of Internal Affairs why if this issue was raised—and I am going to outline specifically what the issue is—it was not addressed at the time especially if this Government is so intent on regulatory reform and cutting red tape. 
I would just like to draw the Committee’s attention to what the issue is. It is really about bringing the labelling of DVDs and video games into the 21st century and creating a harmonisation between the classification of films that are shown at the movies and the DVDs that we watch in our homes. The issue is that most DVDs and some video games that are supplied to the public have to have as my colleague Jacinda Ardern said labels affixed—that is an interesting word “affixed”; it is not a word we normally use—to them showing their rating or classification. Currently those labels take the form of stickers. They are time-consuming and expensive for the industry to actually affix because it has to do it manually. 
We heard two submissions on this particular part of the bill and it was explained to us in depth as to how all of those DVDs had to be brought in and reclassified because of this anomaly in the law. The DVDs had to be watched and if the classification needed to be changed then new labels had to be affixed which meant that they had to be done manually. So that is a group of people sitting around sticking labels on. This creates an enormous amount of cost instead of allowing the harmonisation of the difference between how the actual movie gets classified with how the DVD gets classified. It also means that consumers—as I think probably a number of us have discovered when we go to the DVD store if any of us still go to the DVD store—can be confused as the majority of DVDs and games are imported and yet they carry the New Zealand sticker label and a foreign printed label. So when you are actually going in and having a look to choose the DVD often it is a bit hard to tell which actual classification it has. 
What this bill does is it allows the industry the flexibility to either print or physically affix the labels which as we have heard is expected to result in substantial compliance savings. Those savings are lower than initially estimated because of the reduction and this I suppose is an issue that does go to the change in technology. My understanding from the submitters who did come to the Commerce Committee is that the DVD industry is still alive and well. Having recently joined a DVD shop myself I am aware of just how alive and well it still is. Not all New Zealanders are downloading movies illegally from the internet— 
Kris Faafoi 
: Or legally. 
CLARE CURRAN 
: —or legally—they actually do still go to the DVD shop. And there is something to be said for going to the DVD shop especially when you have got children but the confusion is— 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 It is not my intention to take a full call now but I thought it would be important to acknowledge the role that an individual single member can have in getting legislation moved along. I want to in particular thank Jacinda and compliment her on the work that she has done in Auckland Central and on behalf of the people in the video industry. It is interesting to see when an individual hears a representation picks it up ensures it is considered by the Business Committee has a bill lifted up the Order Paper and has it debated in a way as we are doing now how one individual efficient member of Parliament can cause focus on a piece of legislation. 
Notwithstanding the fact that my copy of the Regulatory Reform Bill states that the Hon Rodney Hide is in charge of the bill I think it is probably likely that it is now John Banks who is the member in charge of it. So notwithstanding the fact that one of the most useless Ministers in the House is in charge of the bill now we have worked on the basis that another Minister who could only be more talented is sitting in the chair and saying nothing in order that the Committee can make progress on Part 5 of the bill which is something that is important to Kiwis and can save hundreds of thousands of dollars a year for people involved in the industry the people who are making the purchases. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: It’s the only thing that does things for business in this whole bill. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: It is the only thing that does things for business in the bill. There could be whole pile of complaints about it taking this long but what I just want to say is that my colleague indicated to the Business Committee through Mr Hipkins and me how important this legislation is. We had had no idea from John Banks about the importance of it. 
Hon Member 
: He doesn’t know about it. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: He probably does not know about it. As a result we are dealing with the Committee stage today and I am sure that the efficient Government will have it on for a very short third reading tomorrow. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 Trevor Mallard and I are no longer sharing a microphone but we are sharing a bill and that was due to the— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: In her case it’s normally me paying. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Paying? No I think that is a little bit unfair of my colleague. I do not think he has paid any bills but he does owe me big time so I am prepared to accept that as future commitment to pay a bill. I think there are a few people he should shout for on this side of the Chamber for a number of reasons but we will not go there. 
The reason I wanted to speak on this particular part of the Regulatory Reform Bill was that this particular measure is actually the most important measure contained within the legislation and I believe from the contribution that my colleague has just made that this explains in very clear terms why the Government wanted to see this bill pushed up the Order Paper. As my colleague has said if the Government had made that clear to the Opposition months ago we would have of course facilitated its passage because it is a bill that we have all worked on very closely and actually very efficiently at the Commerce Committee last year. I have made the point a few times in the Chamber tonight that this bill was referred to our select committee in February last year. I know that the member who was my former deputy chair on the other side of the Chamber is kind of smiling because he knows how it is—Mr— 
Hon Member 
: “Lotto Winner”. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Ha ha! Mr Lotu-Iiga—Mr Lotu-Iiga sorry. He is not my deputy chair any more because I am not the chair of the Commerce Committee and I have not had the pleasure of working so closely with him over recent times. 
But the reason I wanted to take a call on this part is that this particular measure actually goes back quite a long way and it was one of the things that was picked up in something that I called the Quality Regulation Review when I was the Minister of Commerce. The reason I conducted that review was that Helen Clark who was the then Prime Minister said it was really important that we identified what the regulatory barriers to business growth were. So I conducted the Quality Regulation Review which had a number of different elements to it but what it identified relatively quickly was that there was a huge difference between the big end of town and the small end of town. Often the small end of town had these little compliance issues that were just standing in the way of them doing good business and they wanted these little regulatory matters dealt with. The big guys the big end of town had stuff like the Commerce Commission. They had things like Part 4 of the Commerce Act. They wanted to do the big-picture stuff at their end of town but the small to medium sized enterprises of this country pretty much the backbone of a number of elements of our economy wanted to see these little regulatory matters attended to. 
What we discovered was that individual Ministers could not get these things over the line. When it came to negotiating the legislative programme they actually could not get them over the line. This was one of the ones that came up back then and of course it was something that ought to have been dealt with after the change of Government in 2008. It did not see the light of day until last year and now we have had to wait for another term of this Government to have it finally addressed. 
The Films Videos and Publications Classification Act 1993 amendment is the most substantial part of this legislation. It is one that must pass. It actually enables the labelling provisions to be sensible and to be brought into the 21st century which I have to say is about time. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 118 in the name of the Hon John Banks to Part 5 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 5 as amended agreed to. 
Part 6 agreed to.  
Part 7 Friendly Societies and Credit Unions Act 1982 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 20 in the name of the Hon John Banks to Part 7 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 7 as amended agreed to. 
Part 8 agreed to.  
Part 9 agreed to.  
Part 10 agreed to.  
Part 11 agreed to.  
Part 12 agreed to.  
Part 13 Wine Act 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 20 in the name of the Hon John Banks to Part 13 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 13 as amended agreed to. 
Schedule agreed to.  
Clauses 1 and 2.  
Clause 1 agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Papers 118 and 24 in the name of the Hon John Banks to clause 2 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Clause 2 as amended agreed to. 
The Committee divided the bill into the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill the Animal Products Amendment Bill the Companies Amendment Bill (No 2) the Conservation Amendment Bill the Films Videos and Publications Classification Amendment Bill the Fisheries Amendment Bill the Friendly Societies and Credit Unions Amendment Bill the Radiocommunications Amendment Bill the Registered Architects Amendment Bill the Statistics Amendment Bill the Takeovers Amendment Bill the Unit Trusts Amendment Bill and the Wine Amendment Bill pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 119. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I will report this bill with amendment and so divided presently. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I think there is an agreement that the Committee has made sufficient progress and I seek the leave of the Committee that you report progress to date to the Speaker forthwith. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: There is leave sought for that. Is there any objection? There is none. 
House resumed. 
The Chairperson reported the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill with amendment the Regulatory Reform Bill with amendment and that the Committee had divided it into 13 bills no progress on the Trade (Safeguard Measures) Bill and no progress on the Taxation (Annual Rates Returns Filing and Remedial Matters) Bill. 
Report adopted. 
Sittings of the House 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 There having been considerable progress made I seek leave for you to go to your rest early tonight and to come back again tomorrow afternoon. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for the House to rise early—at least that is my interpretation. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? If not leave is granted. 
The House adjourned at 9.50 p.m.