Cunliffe DavidHon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn): It is a distinct pleasure to be able to take an opportunity to commend this bill to the House and speed it on its way to early implementation. My short contribution tonight will be divided into two sections: what is in the bill and what is not in it.Let us start with what is not in it. Nuk Korako's bill is not in it: the bill that has taken up hours and hours of House time to achieve the unbelievable feat of empowering airports to change the way they advertise lost luggage from a classified ad to an internet ad. At least it was not going the other way and going from the internet to a classified ad because that would be perhaps even more wasteful than what we have seen in this House. It has become an emblem of a third-term Government—a Government that is tired that is out of touch and that is not focused on the issues that matter to New Zealanders. Mr Deputy Speaker I see you waving your hand; you are probably feeling what every New Zealander is feeling—Hon Amy Adams: Bored with your speech?Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: —why on earth is Parliament talking about lost luggage? Ah the shrill sound of the lesser Canterbury banshee—is it not lovely?The other bill that is not repealed by this and should have been is the Litter (Increased Infringement Fee) Amendment Bill by the distinguished former mayor of Palmerston North Mr Jono Naylor which drawing upon his years of experience at the pinnacle of local government has drawn the time of the House to raise the litter infringement fee from $400 to $1000—based no doubt on the average hourly rate of the average National backbencher. Fair enough.So what is in this bill? As one thumbs through its many pages and who can argue with the objective of extinguishing redundant legislation—Hon Member: What about redundant members?Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: —of terminating redundant members; we are not looking in any particular direction—but terminating things that have no longer got a useful life in Parliament. As we thumb through the pages this is the nuke 'em" bill for old laws. It is appropriate that Mr Korako is here to bless its passage because he has become an icon of legislative redundancy—an icon of legislative redundancy. What goodies do we find in the annals of this tome? I think it is appropriate that we first turn our attention to the detail of Part 10. This will no doubt be of great relief to you Mr Deputy Speaker because at this stage of the day you will be wanting specificity in the contribution.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: You are not bringing me into this. Carry on.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Part 10 "Fisheries Act 1996". Clause 45 amends section 186A "Temporary closure of fishing area or restriction on fishing methods" and it replaces that section with a section that says that it "may be in force for a period of not more than 2 years and unless sooner revoked is revoked at the end of that 2-year period:". It is followed by clause 47 which says: "in section 197(3)(a) replace 'not exceeding $1000 in any one year' with 'at a rate determined by the chief executive' ".What is clear—and Mr Deputy Speaker your office has earlier today quite rightly given this House 2 hours to debate it—is that a rate determined by the chief executive of the Ministry for Primary Industries fisheries division is precisely zero because they are no longer in the business of enforcing the law in respect of fisheries and in particular bycatch. They have had solid evidence of fish dumping and they have at the highest levels made a conscious decision despite advice that it would be sufficient for a prosecution to ignore it and let the culprits away scot-free. As my good colleague Kelvin Davis said earlier in the day that matters to the average Kiwi fisher because the same Government is blaming recreational fishers for the depletion of fish stocks that is actually being done by commercial players who are not accurately reporting their bycatch because they have illegally dumped it which brings us back to this bill—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: To the bill—let us do that. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: In clause 47 the words "at a rate determined by the chief executive" reveal the agenda of this Government. There will be no penalties because it is a happy hunting ground now for illegal fishing.Brett Hudson: What a load of rubbish.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: What a load of rubbish as the members opposite have said. It is a load of rubbish—it is actually a crime and it should be prosecuted. Just because someone might hypothetically have given millions of dollars to the National Party should not mean that they are above the law colleagues. It should mean that the law treats the rich the poor the insiders and the outsiders just the same. That is the Westminster democracy that we are here to defend that is the Westminster democracy that the people around these walls fought and died to defend and that is what the current Government is not upholding.From the sublime to the ridiculous new section 110 inserted by clause 40—actually this is not ridiculous; this is one of the clauses that I think the Government has got it right on—gives an obligation to give effect to a ministerial direction to a former State-owned enterprise now known as an entity in the mixed-ownership model. It is a sort of mélange à deux between the public and private sectors—Paul Foster-Bell: Ménage à what?Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Mélange not ménage it is because what a bugger's muddle this has turned out to be. Those entities do not know whether they are subject to Crown direction or not. So finally after months and months of advice being given by Her Majesty's loyal Opposition the geniuses on the far side have clarified that in fact those rather muddled entities should be subject to ministerial direction under new section 110 inserted by clause 40 in this bill just as the Labour Opposition has been advising for the last year or two.Turning the page—this is a bit like a bedtime story is it not where the child says: "Oh that is a good story Dadda. Wow can that really be true? Can they really be that stupid?". "Yes son they can." But wait there is more. Turn to Part 21 "Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988" as one scans down through new section 95A and down through clauses 77 and 78—on and on and on it goes pages and pages of legislative amendment to what end? To achieve the earth-shattering outcome of allowing members of the public to exchange one power of attorney with an updated power of attorney. A laudable goal you might say one that we would support. We are in fact voting for this bill but these are the massive issues of State that are consuming the minds of the bodies politic on the other side of the House fiddling while Rome burns and incrementalising while New Zealand slips further and further behind its colleagues in the OECD pack.Our last bill that we debated was the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill. Let us put this in the language that farmers will understand 4c in the dollar for milk at the farm gate relative to the consumer price—4c in the dollar. Why is that relevant? Because this bill is a missed opportunity to drive New Zealand forward up the value chain where we can earn a higher living; none of that is in Part 21 on page 21. Actually that in itself is a feat that the Government ought to get credit for—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member is talking about page 21 of the bill. In my pages the last page is page 14. So I have been struggling to find the relevancy of the various clauses. He talked about a clause 47; there is not one. He talked about a clause 120—something like that—there is not one there either. So I am pleased to see that there is only a minute and six seconds left and I would really hope that in the last minute and six seconds he makes it relevant to the matter under discussion.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Mr Speaker that timely interjection is really a dagger thrust at the heart of New Zealand's democracy because one of three things can have happened: either the Speaker has a different version of the bill from members of this House which would be a travesty of our democratic tradition; or yours is single-spaced and mine is double-spaced which is the most hoped for explanation; or possibly that my executive assistant has in fact inserted the Statutes Amendment Bill rather than the Statutes Repeal Bill.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think that is probably it. You are in the wrong place on the wrong day with the wrong bill.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Which might happily conclude my contribution.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well I hope that timely interruption by the Speaker is relevant enough to make page 2 of the Dominion Post tomorrow."