Hide Rodney: Biosecurity Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Hide Rodney: Biosecurity Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:7061] 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) 
: This is a very important bill and we now have the shiny new Minister the Hon David Cunliffe in the chair. Members of the Opposition have some questions for this Minister. With his Harvard education we know that he will be able to answer them. I refer him to clause 9 and I wonder whether he could explain to the Committee the nature of these levies and whether the Government is envisaging those levies to be a pigovian tax or a user-pays charge. Just what does the Government have in mind? I know that this shiny sharp new Minister will be more than anxious to take a call and answer that question. The Minister is on the big salary now; he has the big car and the big office up in the Beehive. It is time he started to do some work and stand up as a Minister and explain to this Parliament and to the people of New Zealand quite what these levies are. If he does not I am afraid that the public of New Zealand can conclude only one thing—that the bright shiny new Minister does not know. Of course we have had that experience before with this Minister’s member’s bill about triple-bottom-line accounting. It was talked about but it was all mouth and no trousers. That bill did not see the light of day either. 
I also refer members to clause 23 which to me is extraordinary. I draw it to the attention of our colleagues in the National Party New Zealand First and the Green Party. I have never seen this before. Clause 23 “Levies” states: “Section 137(1) of the principal Act is amended by inserting before the word ‘Minister’ the word ‘responsible’.” I ask members to have a think about that for a minute. I used to believe—and I am sure that members in the National Party used to believe—that Ministers were responsible automatically. But this Government brings in a bill under urgency amends it and says: “In this particular case we’re going to make the Minister responsible.” 
It would be the first time would it not that Helen Clark or Michael Cullen has ever said that a Minister should be responsible for anything? Time after time in this House they get up and say: “I’m not responsible for that. That is an operational issue.” or they say—[ 
Interruption 
] David Benson-Pope wants to pinch some Opposition time rather than take a call himself. I hope you are watching this Mr Chairman because it is very clear that the Committee does want to debate Part 1. It is just that the members of the Government are not allowed to. Even the Minister in the chair is under riding instructions not to take a call. How come? 
Brent Catchpole 
: Is he responsible? 
RODNEY HIDE 
: No he is not responsible because there is no section 137(1) that inserts the word “responsible” before the word “Minister”. Would we not be so much better off in New Zealand if we had a Government that took it as read that the Minister was responsible? Annette King is not responsible for anything. Michael Cullen is not responsible for anything. Mark Burton is not conscious of anything let alone responsible for anything. Parekura Horomia cannot read cannot see cannot know and is constantly confused. He is not responsible. The Minister in the chair cannot even get his own bills up and running. What is it called that mad thing that the left is on about? [ 
Interruption 
] Yes it is triple-bottom-line accounting. That is all gone; it is all words. [ 
Interruption 
] David Benson-Pope is not even allowed to take a call in any debate I have been in in this House. All he is is noise.