Volume 619 Week 66 - Wednesday 1 September 2004 
Volume 619 Week 66 - Wednesday 1 September 2004 
[Volume:619;Page:15225] 
Wednesday 1 September 2004 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Questions to Ministers 
Workforce—Skill Levels 
1. LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education) 
: What is the Government doing to ensure a highly skilled New Zealand workforce? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education)) 
: 
 Good news: today I am able to announce that the updated figures on the Modern Apprenticeships programme are looking very good. We have continued to expand the number of modern apprentices. In June 2004 there were 6874 modern apprentices—374 more than target. This is an increase of 20 percent since last year. That is nearly 1200 more apprentices in the space of a year. We now have reached our 500th female modern apprentice. This is good news. 
Lynne Pillay 
: What has been the response to the Modern Apprenticeships scheme? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: This policy was introduced during the first 100 days of the Labour-led Government and we have had a huge demand to bring back modern apprentices. It has been endorsed by every sector of the community—industry business schools mayors parents and learners. Only one sector has said: “This legislation is pathetic just like the scheme that is behind it and the sooner we get rid of it the better.” That quote was from the National Party which would abolish the Modern Apprenticeships scheme by lunchtime if it ever gets the chance. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is the Minister aware that the growth in his much-favoured Modern Apprenticeships scheme is dwarfed by The Open Polytechnic for instance which is enrolling in its low-level LifeWorks programme so fast that by the end of this year he may have to pay it up to $86 million to fund the enrolments it has made? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I am glad that Bill English is endorsing the more strategic approach we are taking. For 9 long years the National Government did nothing. We are now enjoying the fruits of massive growth in industry training and a massive growth in Modern Apprenticeships. I know that he applauds it that he is jealous and that he wishes he had done it. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: What does the Minister propose to do in response to the Human Rights Commission report that identified low household income as a significant barrier to participation in education and also reported that New Zealand had one of the highest disparities in educational performance in the OECD and that the achievement rate for males Maori Pacific peoples disabled and low - socio-economic communities was “disproportionately low”? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is wide of the question but the Minister may comment very briefly. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I am glad the member asked that question because that is a report on the education system. We take it seriously and the member is really giving me the opportunity—which I cannot take because of the Speaker—to reel off what has been an enormous number of policies lowering the cost of education. Maori participation is going through the roof. We are just enjoying such a change in those statistics under this Government and I thank the member for the question. 
Taxation—Increases Since 1999 
2.  
Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he stand by his answer of $12.793 billion to the House yesterday when asked what the cumulative nominal increase in all taxes received since 1999 was; if so why? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Acting Minister of Finance) 
: 
 On behalf of the Minister of Finance I stand by my answer which stated that the nominal increase in all taxes received since 1999 was $12.793 billion. That is a far more meaningful figure to use as it compares the tax take in 1999 with that take now. [ 
Interruption 
] If the member wants to be given useless data I say the figure for the cumulative nominal increase in taxes since 1999 is $33.992 billion—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member knows full well that he cannot bring me into the debate. He brings me into the debate every time he uses the second person. That is the end of it; he will leave the Chamber if he keeps on doing that. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: If the member wants to be given useless data I say the figure for the cumulative nominal increase in taxes since 1999 is $33.992 billion as John Key told the House yesterday. Why did Dr Brash not just ask his finance spokesperson that? 
Dr Don Brash 
: Is the Minister ashamed of the fact that the Government has increased tax cumulatively by almost $34 billion since 1999 when he was quite specifically asked for the cumulative nominal increase in tax revenue since that time; if so will he consider reducing the tax burden on the average New Zealand worker who now pays $2800 per year more than was the case in 1999? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Hell no. This Government is proud that it has had economic growth. It has put tens of thousands of people into jobs. They are paying tax when previously they were getting benefits. Tories do not like that but we are proud of it. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There were some interjections. I do not mind a few interjections but some of them were just banal in the extreme. [ 
Interruption 
] The member knows perfectly well what I am referring to. That is a matter for a supplementary question to draw out. 
David Parker 
: Is the Minister worried about the level of increase in the tax take? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No. What has occurred has been a massive increase in the number of people in jobs. Some people are in very well-paid jobs. There are some people who work only an hour a week and they get $5700 an hour for it—like Don Brash. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member knows that he cannot make personal reflections on a member. He will withdraw that last statement. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I withdraw. I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can I ask you for an explanation? What I gave the House was the rate divided by 34—the annual salary for someone who does an hour of work in here per week. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister is compounding things at this point. I am warning him. I do not want to have to ask Ministers to leave the Chamber because they may have other questions on the Order Paper to answer. The Minister is in grave danger of being asked to leave. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister has no other questions on the Order Paper that another Minister could not answer. The point Mr Speaker is that a senior Minister in the Government has stood up and completely defied your previous ruling. It seems to me that whenever that happens on the Opposition side of the House we go. I am letting you know that as far as the National Party is concerned we do not mind if Trevor Mallard is not in the House. He adds nothing to its business. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member can make his point of view known. I have made my point of view known. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Will the Minister consider reducing the company tax rate from 33 percent given that when this Government came to office in 1999 the average company tax rate in the OECD was 35 percent and it is now below 30 percent and given the fact that the net company tax take has increased by 72 percent over the last 5 years? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think there are two points to be made. The first is that the reason the net company tax rate has gone up so much is that companies are much more profitable in a growing economy than they used to be. The second point is that any reduction in the company tax rate is in the end a transfer to overseas owners and we do not support that. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am not getting anything out. The member will; he has had his warning. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Has the Minister been advised by Dr Cullen that the answer to this question—first asked by Peter Brown on 17 August—was given by the Minister of Finance and can he confirm when it may be that “New Zealand Second” will stop stealing New Zealand First’s material in politics? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The member is absolutely correct. The material was given to the House by Dr Cullen in an answer to a question from Mr Brown. On the second question I would not hold my breath because the National members are hopeless. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Would the Minister be kind enough to clarify to the House why he is proud of this Government taking a record amount of tax from the community in light of this card which members may not have seen before—it is called “We will deliver” it has a picture of what I understand to be our Prime Minister on the front and it states: “No rise in income tax for the 95 percent of taxpayers earning under $60000 a year.”—and the fact that this year 10 percent of all taxpayers are paying the top rate of tax and 20 percent of all full-time taxpayers are paying the top rate of tax; and I know he said yesterday that in 2002 there was an election with a different manifesto so could he point out to us where the Labour Party promised New Zealanders that this country would have a higher rate of personal and company tax than our trading partners? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I remind the member that commitment No. 7 on that card referred to taxpayers earning under $60000 a year. The fact that the economy has gone so well that there is a smaller number of people in that group is a good thing not a bad thing. The facts that people are better off earn more and are more likely to be in jobs than previously are something that this Government is proud of. Tories hate that. They do not like workers to earn money. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Does the Minister stand by the statement he made in April 2000 in Hong Kong when he said that he would like to reduce the company tax rate “as fiscal conditions permit”; and if a $34 billion cumulative increase in the tax take and a 72 percent increase in the net company tax rate annually are not enough to justify a cut in that rate what on earth is? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think two points should be made. The first is that the tax take as a percentage of GDP is very similar to the rate in 1999 so that the proportion of our economy that is going into taxation is very much the same as it was then. The second point—and I repeat this point—is that in the end individuals get dividends from companies and pay tax on them. If we cut the company tax rate the people who win will be the people who are overseas residents. I stand up for New Zealanders not for overseas owners. 
Dr Don Brash 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I know what the member is going to say. The Minister was asked whether he stood by the statement that he made. He did not address that part of the question. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think it is fair to say on behalf of the Minister of Finance that his Acting Minister does not currently recall that statement. 
Dr Don Brash 
: I seek leave to table the Minister’s speech in April 2000 in which he made it clear that as fiscal conditions permit he would consider reducing the company tax rate. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to table a question asked by Peter Brown to the Minister of Finance on 17 August and I wonder why TVNZ interviewed the National Party about the result of the answer to it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table the statement. The rest of that is irrelevant. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I seek leave to table a very rare document: the Labour Party’s promise at the 1999 election that there would be no rise in income tax for 95 percent of taxpayers. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. 
Document not tabled. 
Taiwan—Visa Refusal 
3.  
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
 to the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade 
: Why was Taiwan Minister of State Lin Yi-Fu refused entry to New Zealand and how is this “in the best interests of New Zealand” as the Minister claims? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
: 
 Mr Lin was not refused entry to New Zealand. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Will the Minister not confirm that the Taiwan authorities were told on Monday by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade that Minister Lin would not be permitted to enter New Zealand because Australia had decided not to give Minister Lin a visa to enter that country and since when has New Zealand’s foreign and trade policy been determined by what goes on in Australia? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I cannot confirm that because to the best of my knowledge it is simply not correct. As to who determines New Zealand’s foreign policy New Zealand does but I can help the member by quoting to him from a letter from the chair of the New Zealand Taiwan Business Council Bertha Wright. She said: “The Taiwanese delegation has requested that our joint conference be postponed so that a future date can be set to allow more preparation so that they are able to attend both the Australia and New Zealand business conferences on the same trip.” As the member knows the Australians declined a visa to Mr Lin. 
Luamanuvao Winnie Laban 
: What is the New Zealand Government’s position with regard to recognition of Taiwan as representing the Government of China and how long has it held that position? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: New Zealand does not recognise Taiwan as representing the Government of China. It has held that position for 32 years—that is since 1972. New Zealand holds to a one-China policy in common with practically all of the countries of the world bar a handful of small countries. 
Rod Donald 
: Why is the Labour Government allowing the autocratic Chinese rulers to dictate New Zealand’s foreign policy and why are human rights democracy and freedom of speech now subservient to free-trade deals when the Minister used to believe that making money was secondary to matters of principle? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Firstly New Zealand does not allow any other country to dictate its foreign policy and that includes China. Secondly the member made the allegation that human rights policies are somehow being subordinated. I could mention to that member that New Zealand has stood firm on its policy on human rights in China to the extent that it welcomed the Dalai Lama to New Zealand and to the extent that it refused to have a situation whereby New Zealanders in this country could not demonstrate against a high-level visit. I can tell that member that on practically every bilateral agenda I have with China human rights is an issue. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Why did he make the statement that it would be in New Zealand’s best interest if the Taiwanese Minister of State Mr Lin did not visit New Zealand at this time when he Mr Goff New Zealand’s Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade is happy to be photographed holding hands with Yasser Arafat? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I have been photographed with all sorts of leaders around the world. I meet with leaders of other countries regardless of my views of their personal policies and the member knows that. What he is saying is simply a cheap shot. What I am saying is that this Government will act in the political interests of this country and it is not in our political interests to politicise our relationship with Taiwan. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: If the Minister’s original answer that no decision has been made to deny Minister Lin entry to New Zealand is correct why did the Minister claim on radio this morning that to have Minister Lin visit New Zealand at this time would escalate cross - Taiwan Strait tensions at a time when both Taiwan and China have deliberately cancelled their annual military exercises in the Straits of Taiwan to de-escalate those tensions; is the Minister seriously claiming that a visit to New Zealand is about to start World War III? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: No and I never made any suggestion to that effect. What I said was setting the context. There has been an escalation in cross - Taiwan Strait tensions. The member knows that to be a fact. I mentioned that we are having trade discussions with China. That will be of huge benefit to this country and practically every party in this Chamber will support that. I said that by way of a general context saying that our relationship with Taiwan is economic and cultural it is not political. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: When the deputy secretary for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade was in Taipei last week on a familiarisation visit did he discuss Minister Lin’s proposed visit to New Zealand with any of the officials or Ministers whom he met; if he did have that discussion what then was the tenor of Mr Green’s discussion with the Taiwan authorities on Monday where the decision was conveyed that Minister Lin would not be welcome in this country? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Mr Green the Deputy Secretary for Foreign Affairs and Trade certainly did visit Taiwan as our officials do from time to time in furtherance of the economic and cultural relationship between the two countries. That is quite within the parameters of our one-China policy. I can categorically say that Mr Green did not use language that Minister Lin was not welcome or wanted in New Zealand. Mr Green did point out that the context had changed somewhat with the Australian decision not to grant a visa and that representation may be more appropriate at a vice-ministerial level. 
New Zealand On Air— 
NZ Idol 
4.  
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Broadcasting 
: Following his answer yesterday that the $450000 “equity investment” into  
NZ Idol 
 was a “very normal contract for New Zealand On Air. It funds programmes in this way frequently.” how many loans has New Zealand On Air provided television programme makers and how many of those loans have been paid back in full? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Broadcasting) 
: 
 New Zealand On Air does not make loans. It is normal for New Zealand On Air to take an equity position in a funded project. Returns on a project come from a variety of sources such as overseas sales and merchandising. If a programme is profitable money will flow back to New Zealand On Air under those arrangements. Examples of these arrangements are the recent TV3 drama  
The Strip 
 the first 4 years of  
Shortland Street 
 and the recent movie  
Whale Rider 
. In the last two cases New Zealand On Air has made a return on those investments. 
Rodney Hide 
: How does the Minister explain this $450000 “equity investment” being needed as Jo Tyndall said as a “kick-start” otherwise “it is unlikely the programme could have been made in New Zealand” when the contract to provide this money was not signed until a week before the show ended? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I understand that the relative cost of putting  
NZ Idol 
 to air was approximately nine times more than the cost of an overseas programme like  
American Idol 
. The reason the money was not paid later was not unusual: Television New Zealand understood that it had access to that money that arrangement was made it went ahead and started with the programme a number of changes were made later on—as we know there were add-ons to the programme as it went along—and the money was paid. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We have this trouble with this particular Minister quite a lot. If you read yesterday’s  
Hansard 
— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Would the member come to the point of order. 
Rodney Hide 
: I would if I was not interrupted. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I did not hear the member being interrupted but he assures me that he was. He will not be any more. 
Rodney Hide 
: The question was not about when the money was paid; it was about when the contract was signed. There was no contract to pay the money. The Minister talked about when the money was paid. The question was about the signing of the contract which was not signed until a week before the production finished. That was the point of the question. He can burble on about when the money was paid until the cows come home but it is not addressing my question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thought he did in the last sentence he gave. 
Moana Mackey 
: How exactly does the New Zealand On Air system work? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Producers seek the support of a broadcaster for a proposed programme and approach New Zealand On Air for funding. New Zealand On Air provides funding as an equity investment under a contract providing that if the programme generates unforeseen revenue from such things as sales or merchandising New Zealand On Air will receive a return on its investment. An equity investment is partly or wholly repayable to New Zealand On Air if certain conditions in the funding contract in respect of the programme’s profitability are met. In the case of  
NZ Idol 
—a fantastically successful programme—New Zealand On Air is entitled to repayments on a first-out basis against its investment. 
Katherine Rich 
: Has the New Zealand On Air chief executive officer Jo Tyndall received the full reports that she was expecting “shortly” from TVNZ back in April; if not when are those full reports actually expected to be made? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: As I said in the House yesterday all of the arrangements around that programme have not been completed yet such as knowing whether overseas sales will take place and the report has not been completed yet. But she will get one. It is a very normal process. 
Deborah Coddington 
: How does he square his answer yesterday when he said “… if  
NZ Idol 
 generates more revenue than it has cost to produce then New Zealand On Air is entitled to repayments on a first-out basis against its investment.” with a letter from the New Zealand On Air chief executive officer Jo Tyndall dated 15 August 2003 which states: “The board will contribute to  
NZ Idol 
 in the form of a loan with the requirement that this loan is first out in the event that any revenue results from the programme.”; and given that commitment why has New Zealand On Air not got its money back? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The arrangement made here is an equity investment which allows the organisation to get first-out status if there is money to be paid back. As I said that is something that has happened with other programmes. TV3 has two programmes currently running of that sort. Originally the question was one of a loan because of the difficulties of using the  
Idol 
 format in New Zealand. South Pacific Pictures which eventually made the programme could not get access to that format and make it itself because of contractual obligations. TVNZ asked for a loan to be able to do it. That did not work so it moved back to a normal contractual arrangement with the kinds of things we have talked about here today. In other words it reconciles extremely easily. 
Deborah Coddington 
: Which statement on the payback threshold is correct: his answer yesterday that New Zealand On Air would receive its money back if there were sufficient profits or an internal New Zealand On Air email dated 16 March 2004 which states: “The agreement was that it remains the same’’—that is the payback threshold—“regardless of the increase in the overall budgeted costs. Therefore the draft still refers to New Zealand On Air’s funds being repaid once the programme revenue exceeds [blanked out figure].”? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: At the risk of trying the House’s patience let me answer again. The loan arrangement that was originally discussed did not go ahead. What did go ahead was an equity investment arrangement with a first-out arrangement. That is what I said yesterday that is what I am saying today and that is the arrangement that prevails. 
Rodney Hide 
: Is it not the case that this $450000 of equity investment in TVNZ has been entirely eaten up by payments to the franchise holder Simon Fuller and that this money has just served to line the pocket of a multimillionaire international music tycoon or is this Minister prepared to say that New Zealand On Air is first out before Simon Fuller? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: This money went to make a programme watched by 1 million New Zealanders. There were 300 performers and 10000 people were involved in the programme. It was fantastically successful. We back young people. That member may not but we will carry on doing so. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister will now come to the question asked. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I am not going to speculate on the wild claims as usual made by the ACT leader. I am going to say that the money went towards kick-starting a fantastically successful programme. That is my answer. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That was an outrageous answer from a Minister. [ 
Interruption 
] Well that member there can call out and I know she will get away with it in this House— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will sit down. I try to be reasonable over this. When the last point of order was raised comments were made from the other side of the House and I ignored them. I did not think there was an interruption at that point. The member will please come to his point of order because at present there is not one. 
Rodney Hide 
: My point of order is quite simple. The Minister is required to address the question. He never attempted to. In fact he started off by saying he would not and what you do Mr Speaker is allow that to happen. What is the point? The question was quite simple: is it not the case that this has happened? The answer was: “Look I am not prepared to speculate on that.” and then he went on to say what a great show the programme was. He should address in this House the questions that MPs have of this Government and you should be enforcing that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes—I am. Let me just say first of all that that is why I asked the Minister to go further with his answer and he certainly addressed the question at that stage. 
Rodney Hide 
: He went no further. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: He did. He addressed that question. It might not have satisfied the member but it satisfied me as far as his addressing the question was concerned. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Is it your ruling that a Minister after being directed by you to provide a fuller answer can stand up and say: “I am not prepared to speculate. I am not prepared to comment on the wild speculations of that member.” and that is a fuller answer? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. I am saying that it adequately addresses the question. It does not mean it is satisfactory as far as any member in this House is concerned. That is not my job. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. So it is quite possible in this House during question time for a Minister to stand up and say: “Look I am not prepared to comment on that question.” and sit down and you would accept that day after day. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I would not. I will judge each case on its merits. 
Deborah Coddington 
: I seek leave to table a letter from New Zealand On Air dated 16 August 2003 and an internal email from New Zealand On Air dated 16 March 2004 which set out that the payback threshold is different from what the Minister claims. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just want to pick up a little on the point Rodney Hide was making. I know that you have given your rulings but I am asking you to take some time to consider whether the Speakers’ rulings to date are satisfactory for the House at the present time. While it might be that a Minister does not have to give an answer and that a Minister can simply stand and recite a nursery rhyme or some other such thing and can consider that to have been addressing the question the reality is that the public has an expectation that when questions are asked about a matter where there is a public interest an answer that is consistent with that public interest will be given—and our Standing Orders do require that. I think that over a period of time particularly this year it has been evident that Ministers are simply tired of the process cannot be bothered or in the worst cases just do not want to give the information that is being sought by the Opposition. I think that in order to protect and preserve the dignity of this House and the integrity of question time some reconsideration of Speakers’ rulings at this point is necessary with perhaps some new guidance from you about how members’ questions should be dealt with. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am always prepared to consider requests such as the member makes. He has made a proper request and I will certainly give a considered opinion. As far as I am concerned I have been ruling in much the same way as I have been since I was appointed Speaker. If I go back to previous Speakers I think they did much the same. I refer the member to pages 144 to 147 of  
Speakers’ Rulings 
. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That is exactly what I was asking you to do— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will consider the matter. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: We just ask you to consider whether in this day and age the Speakers’ rulings are adequate because anybody can get on the Internet and find out anything in 5 minutes but Ministers cannot come to the House and give an answer to a question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. The member is now debating. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Referring to the point of order raised by the member I draw to your attention Standing Order 370(1)and also Speaker’s ruling 145/6. It would seem to me that as part of the consideration you are about to give to the point Mr Brownlee raised you might also want to reflect upon the appropriateness of the Speaker being set up in the way he would have you set up—to be effectively the ultimate judge and arbiter of the merits of any reply. It is one thing to address a question but another thing altogether to determine who decides the merits of the answer being given. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I could not have put it better myself. 
Maori Land Court—Judicial Review 
5.  
TARIANA TURIA (Leader—Maori Party) 
 to the  
Attorney-General 
: When was the last time an Attorney-General sought judicial review of a decision of a judge in the Maori Land Court? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
 
 on behalf of the 
 Attorney-General 
: Judges’ decisions are quite properly subject to judicial review. I am advised that Maori Land Court decisions have been subjected to judicial review on previous occasions though information is not kept on Crown cases in a manner that enables me to provide specific details on when it last occurred. 
Tariana Turia 
: Is the Attorney-General motivated by pique rather than by principle and has she seriously considered her motives in bringing this case forward? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The Attorney-General as always of course is motivated by principle. The principle in this case and what judicial review is actually about is the fact that Judge Wickliffe was both judge and claimant which meant that she was acting as a judge in her own cause. The case law describes that as a situation requiring automatic disqualification from sitting on a case. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I warn the Minister that I do not want any comment to be made about the case that is at present before the courts. 
Lianne Dalziel 
: Has the Government often undertaken judicial review proceedings that involve a New Zealand court? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The answer to that is yes on occasions there have been dozens of cases in a year where the Crown has undertaken judicial review proceedings that involve a New Zealand court. Those cases most often relate to criminal proceedings. 
Richard Worth 
: Why has the Attorney-General allowed a situation of unprecedented tension and conflict to arise between the Government and the judiciary given that we have the Attorney-General suing the Maori Land Court for bias we have trenchant criticism of the judges by the Government we have spats over court facilities and support and we have the Attorney-General name-calling the Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court a “shop steward”; is she concerned about that relationship or is she indifferent to it? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Obviously a lot of the member’s comments raised in that question are taken totally out of context. I say it is not unusual for a judicial review to be taken. That is about enforcing the rule of law—and judges like anyone else are under the rule of law. This application for judicial review will decide whether the judge has strayed from the proper legal path. 
Metiria Turei 
: Is the Government not guilty of duplicity in taking judicial review action and demanding that the Maori Land Court— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member knows she cannot say that. That accuses the Government of something there have been numerous Speakers’ rulings about. The member will reword her question. That is her one and only chance. 
Metiria Turei 
: Thank you for that clarification Mr Speaker. Is the Government not guilty of inconsistency in taking judicial review action and demanding that the Maori Land Court delay its proceedings until the Privy Council has released its decision when the Government denies hundreds of New Zealanders the opportunity to be heard on the Foreshore and Seabed Bill because it wants to get its legislation passed before the Privy Council makes its decision? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The Government is not guilty of inconsistency in that regard. I am not on the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee but I understand the select committee is being run in a very proper and an efficient way in order to hear the cases. Nor is the Government guilty of any constitutional wrongdoing in applying judicial review to a case where it is believed by Crown Law that the judge acted wrongly. 
Stephen Franks 
: Does the Attorney-General feel any need to apologise to her Cabinet colleagues for having to allege bias against Judge Wickliffe when the Attorney-General must have known that less than 6 months before Ms Wickliffe was appointed to the Maori Land Court she told a major conference in this House that Government institutions in Aotearoa New Zealand must be relegitimised by negotiation for a partnership with a national Maori body politic and when the Attorney-General must have known that Ms Wickliffe had publicly approved of and encouraged indigenous Fijian racism after the second coup; has the Minister now learned anything about appointing her ideological comrades to high office? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: There were a number of questions there— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: And the Minister will be brief in his reply. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Yes. The question essentially is about the accusation of bias. Under the law there is a provision whereby judges can recuse themselves—that is stand aside on the grounds of apparent bias. The judge did that but only after she had already made a decision. What the judicial review is about is whether the judge acted properly in the first instance. 
Stephen Franks 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The actual nature of the allegation I consider to be something that pertains to the court and to be something we would not comment on. My question was about the suitability of the appointment in the first place given the position the Government now finds itself in. The Minister did not reply to that at all. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: He did not have to because there were about four or five questions in that question. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Two questions. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There were about four or five— 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Two! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is the last time I will warn the member about interjecting while I am on my feet. I heard a number of strands to the supplementary question that was asked. The Minister chose to answer some of them. That is his right. 
Donna Awatere Huata 
: Will the Attorney-General reassure Maori that Pakeha judges are free from the stereotypes and prejudices about Maori that researchers show are held by a majority of Pakeha; and will she reassure Maori that in the case of the foreshore Pakeha judges will not be influenced by the majority of their race who object to Maori ownership and how will she measure that? [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member who made that statement will leave the Chamber. 
Hon John Tamihere withdrew from the Chamber. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will not warn members any more today. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: By definition judges must act in a way that demonstrates they are free from stereotypes and prejudices of any sort. Of course judges must also be sure that they are not influenced by public opinion. That is what the independence of the judiciary is all about. 
Tariana Turia 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Generally in the House the person who asks the principal question does get a final supplementary question. Why am I being discriminated against? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will be seated. She is not being discriminated against. The member has one supplementary question a day and she chooses when she asks it. 
Tariana Turia 
: I seek leave of the House to ask a further supplementary question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for the member to have a further supplementary question. Is there any objection? There is. 
Privacy—Rights of Parents and Guardians 
6.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Does he agree with the Secondary Principals Association of New Zealand the New Zealand Association of Counsellors and some schools that parents and guardians have no right to know if their child has been sexually assaulted? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Each case must be guided by what is judged to be the best interests of the child. The judgment is informed by the age of the child the child’s level of maturity the child’s wishes his or her competence to make such a judgment and an assessment of the risks to the child from the consequences of disclosure or non-disclosure. That judgment is made by the professionals to whom the child has made the disclosure and those professionals are bound by the standards and ethics of their profession. 
Hon Bill English 
: What measures can be taken by a parent or guardian who strongly disagrees with the decision that is made—in this case the girl had enough of a learning disability for the parents to regard her as unable to follow the instructions for the medical treatment that she had been given—and what can parents do about it? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I will not comment on individual cases. 
Nanaia Mahuta 
: What are the possible consequences of forcing counsellors to automatically share information they receive with parents? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Students would feel less confident about discussing personal matters with a counsellor. When students ask for help they should be treated with respect and discretion. Often these are cases of family sexual abuse and automatic disclosure would just be wrong. 
Hon Bill English 
: How sensible is it for schools to have policies that require parents to be notified if a student leaves the school grounds for a dental appointment but not to notify parents if the same child makes an allegation of rape? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think it is important that children be given every opportunity to reveal to counsellors when they have been abused and that they should be encouraged to bring their parents into the discussions. But if children were forced to do that they would not reveal abuse and that would mean that they would be permanently damaged. 
Hon Bill English 
: What does the Minister then make of the decision by this school to tell the parents but to do so 3 months later when the parents thought they were trying to deal with a bullying problem; is he right to defend the school’s policy of not telling the parents or did it make the right decision in telling them? Why can he not make up his mind about that? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I will not comment on any individual case. 
National Certificate of Educational Achievement—Hauraki Plains College 
7.  
HELEN DUNCAN (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Has any evidence yet been supplied to substantiate the claim that “many students gave exactly the same answers to questions” during assessments for National Certificate of Educational Achievement credits at Hauraki Plains College; if not what reports has he seen on the matter? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 No. I am advised by the New Zealand Qualifications Authority that a box of supposed evidence to support these claims contained student workbooks that were never intended to form part of the students’ assessment. The New Zealand Qualifications Authority has advised that all of the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) credits awarded to students at Hauraki Plains College are legitimate. Those students have had their school and their qualifications recklessly undermined by baseless allegations. To make things worse they have had no public support from their local MP although I understand she stropped Bill English up in their caucus yesterday. 
Helen Duncan 
: Does the Minister have any evidence that Hauraki Plains College has acted inappropriately in any way with regard to this matter? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No absolutely not. As I said earlier as soon as the school was made aware of a potential problem it acted swiftly. I understand that Bill English has apologised to the school. I wish he would do it publicly. 
Hon Bill English 
: I have not apologised to the school. What does the Minister have to say to the Central North Island Principals Association which has stated: “We support NCEA as an assessment of choice for the sake of integrity and credibility. We ask that there be a review of procedures and policies at a national level.” and if he will not believe what I have to say why does he not believe the principals association that published that statement in a newspaper? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I certainly do not believe what that member says. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member can now come to the actual point about the principals concerned. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: We are all concerned about the integrity of NCEA. Clearly at Cambridge High School there was a major error on the part of a number of teachers. That is still the subject of investigation. People making up things about other schools dragging them through the mud the way the member did taking the word of a liar and taking stolen documents does nothing for the integrity of our education system. 
Police—Offence Report Auckland 
8.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: What communications and discussions has he had with members of the police with respect to the incident at 8 Rocky Nook Avenue on 12 September 2002 and is he satisfied with the outcome? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 Police confirmed to me that a complaint of burglary was made from that address on that date and that the victim through his lawyer asked that the complaint not proceed and the police independently took that course. Decisions around prosecutions are the preserve of the police not the Minister of Police. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can the Minister tell the House the reason that the Phillip Layton Edwards file in relation to the alleged aggravated burglary at 8 Rocky Nook Avenue on 12 September 2002 involving Mr Peter Shaw husband of Judge Coral Shaw was stamped “confidential” and “not for unauthorised distribution or disclosure”? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I do not have that information. However if the member opposite has concerns about misconduct by the police he should raise the matter with the Police Complaints Authority. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That surely cannot be an adequate answer. I am asking him as the Minister to take responsibility for his portfolio. For him to get up and say that in effect I should have gone to the police force—the very people about whom I am complaining—is a nonsense. I want an answer as to why that file—of a serious 50-time criminal—was marked “confidential” and “not for unauthorised distribution or disclosure”. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is getting into debate. I ascertained that the Minister did address the question as he should have. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Will the Minister admit that the reason the file has remained confidential to this point is that an instruction was given to the police that they could not prosecute Mr Edwards for an alleged burglary because it was not a burglary; and when does the trauma of a witness or complainant even in cases such as rape and serious domestic violence outweigh the well-established convention that police will always prosecute for violent offences when they have ample evidence to do so? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I shall quote the acting district commander of the Auckland City police Detective Superintendent Gavin Jones who today said that police believed there had been a burglary and confirmed that they had spoken to Edwards about the matter. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is it not a fact that no one could have intimidated the complainant witness in this case given that the perpetrator had admitted to his crime—had confessed his crime—and therefore there was absolutely no reason why the police could not have prosecuted Mr Edwards other than having received instruction from above? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I do not have any role in whether the police prosecute. I quote a wee bit more from what Detective Superintendent Jones said: “In this case the police received strong representations from the victim and his representative not to pursue this matter. Out of respect for his rights the police took the decision not to proceed with a prosecution.” 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why did the police not prosecute Phillip Layton Edwards when they had a confession and DNA evidence on file at the time of this offence; why did they need any witness when they had a confession and the DNA evidence? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Detective Superintendent Gavin Jones said today that decisions not to proceed with criminal matters are never taken lightly by the police and that the matter has been dealt with on the same basis as other matters. No special approach was taken or suggested. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why in this case of a violent crime—as the lawyer for Peter Shaw has told the media—do we see on the police file note the following words: “Edwards was spoken to and admitted to the burglary on the understanding that it would never be used against him or published in any way.”; how on earth could this be a case that the police did not prosecute given that Mr Edwards was already guilty of 50 crimes many violent? We had a violent criminal walking the streets who later killed someone. He was a time bomb waiting to happen. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: The member seems to be suggesting that I as the Minister of Police have a role in those decisions. I do not. The police make those decisions independently in the same way that they independently looked at the trouble in Courtenay Place when members did not pay taxi fares. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: In respect of that violent criminal is it not a fact that when it became clear to the police that some of the physical evidence at the crime scene was at odds with the verbal evidence of Peter Shaw he was called to the police station for a second interview and that that further discussion was undertaken with Judge Shaw present; and knowing that how on earth can the Minister not respond in a darn sight more serious way than he is? 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to raise with you grave concerns about the way that the right honourable member is using question time and I draw this to your attention. I pointed out to you yesterday that he was making allegations that the Standing Orders require to be authenticated. Yesterday he said there was no burglary. He has now told us that the police file shows that the offender actually admitted there was a burglary. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: So what. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the member interjects again he is out. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: The “so what” is this. Under our Standing Orders it is offensive and disorderly for a member to make such comments. Standing Order 113 states: “A member may not use offensive words against the House or against any member of the judiciary.” It appears to me that the member has deliberately brought in a member of the judiciary. The member of the judiciary does not appear to have done anything wrong. But I take this point: how are we supposed to interpret this? I went through the records to see whether any member has ever attacked the family of the judiciary. I cannot find a reference to that but if you have a look at how we regard our own remarks if these remarks were made against the family of a member of Parliament they would be ruled out. 
We have a general principle that this Parliament will not make disrespectful statements against the judiciary and we expect the judiciary not to make disrespectful statements against us. I suggest to you that the member is using question time to make an indirect but obviously very deeply offensive attack against the judiciary. I think all of his questions—once he has made it clear that that is what his real purpose is—ought to be ruled out. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have been listening to this with a great deal of interest and I want to thank the member for raising the point of order in the way that he did. I have looked at  
Speakers’ Rulings 
 and all the precedents. It is largely a matter of taste how members comment on persons outside the House. The member is perfectly correct that if Mr Peters had commented about anyone inside the House it would have been ruled out of order. He did not attack the judicial officer in that capacity or really attack her at all. He said that she was present. 
The fact of the matter is that we do have free speech in this place and that is a very precious thing. I for one know that there are signs all around this Chamber representing what we fought for to retain. That means there will be occasions when people do say in this House what they would not say outside it. I have done it myself on two occasions after very very careful thought. I say to the member that as far as freedom of speech is concerned members have it in this House. Whether members comment on persons outside the House is a matter of taste. That is about as far as I can take the matter in all of the studies I have done both here in looking at our Parliament and in Great Britain. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I find myself in agreement with your statement except to this extent—that in this House one cannot say by innuendo matters that are out of order. It is not in our  
Speakers’ Rulings 
 but it is in our Standing Orders that members cannot make offensive references to the judiciary. I have to say that I have taken the innuendo from the member’s questioning to suggest that the reason this particular individual has been treated differently is because of the actions of his spouse who happens to be a judge. If the member is not making such innuendo perhaps he should clarify that matter to the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am going to ask the member a question because I want to agree with Mr Prebble. If the member makes an allegation against a judge he will be out of order. Did he make an allegation against a judge? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: No Mr Speaker I did not. I want to speak to the point of order as well. If Mr Prebble was remotely right then the answer to question No. 5 today could not have been given. He is engaged in a nonsense to try to break up question time. It is a palpably demonstrable nonsense that he tried yesterday as well. If he wants to defend violent criminals that is fine by me but we do not. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please come to the point of order. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I am legitimately asking a Minister to take responsibility for the actions of a violent criminal who went on to murder someone—murder it would have been had all the evidence been in front of the court. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Once again all I can say is that as the member has assured me he has not made an allegation against a judge up to that point he is not out of order. A question was asked and the Minister did not get a chance to answer it because Mr Prebble intervened with a point of order. Perhaps we had better hear the question again. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why was a man who had previously served time in jail for amongst other things violent offences such as behaving threateningly and assaulting a female not charged by the leader of the investigation Detective Senior Sergeant John Tims when he had the DNA evidence placing Edwards at the scene had a confession and had a preparedness from that man to plead guilty; why on earth was this serious crime not prosecuted; and what is he trying to cover up? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The first two of those three questions can be answered. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I repeat what Detective Superintendent Gavin Jones said. He believed that there had been a burglary and he confirmed that but he said that in making a decision to prosecute a matter such as this the wishes of the victim are taken into consideration. Victims have rights and the police have a duty to consider those rights seriously. I have no part whatsoever in the police making those decisions and I would be scared of any Government that member would be in charge of if he has that view. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: If the Minister is so sure that he has absolutely nothing to hide and that the police took it upon themselves not to charge Mr Phillip Layton Edwards for aggravated burglary on 12 September 2002 at the home of Mr Shaw the husband of Judge Coral Shaw would he be prepared now to release a detailed forensic analysis of the telephone accounts email or any other communication that would reveal no communication between the police and any other members of the judiciary public or executive that placed the privacy of a man over the safety of society and led to a man being murdered? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: As the Minister of Police I do not have such papers and I never see them. I never even saw them when the member refused to pay his taxi fare. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister has now had a number of days to acquaint himself with this case and to rise in Parliament to answer the question. All we have heard is evidence why this incompetent Minister should be forced to resign. He might think it is a laughing matter; I do not. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will please be seated. I will not have members of this Parliament attacked in that particular way. If there is a point of order what is it? I have not heard one yet. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: You know what my point of order is. Firstly the Minister has tacked on a whole lot of totally irrelevant information in respect of the questioner; and secondly he has again refused to answer the question. I should not have to make that point of order. I am prepared to put up with it because if he is prepared to sow it then I can dish it out. But you must give me a fair go in this House and you have not thus far. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I can say that I have given the member a fairer go than any other member in this Chamber. If any person in this House knows that it is the member. He gets a pretty good run. The last comment the Minister made was irrelevant to the question that was asked. I concede that point but as far as the rest of the answer was concerned it addressed the question. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is exactly why I have previously asked you to look again at those Speakers’ rulings. Mr Peters asked the Minister whether he was prepared to release telephone records and other such material that would give a fair indication of whether there was communication between any members of the executive the police and those others who might be related to this case. The Minister stood up and said he did not have any of that information. Quite clearly he has. He has his own telephone records and presumably he could talk to the Prime Minister and get her records. The question is whether he would release them. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member did not listen to the question or the answer. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Given the seriousness of this case and the fact that we had a violent criminal who was a time bomb—that is why his nickname is Tick—out in the community about to commit murder and this Minister’s clear part today in seeking to conceal the obvious pressure that was put on the police to drop the charges against Mr Edwards which ultimately would have saved Mr McNee’s life will he now do the right thing and resign? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: No. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does the Minister not feel any responsibility as Minister having picked up the LTD and the ministerial salary for what became a violent murder in the city of Auckland when there was a clear opportunity as Minister and as a police force to have this violent criminal in prison at the time that offence occurred and what would it take for the Minister to resign? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: If I make a mistake and I have not. I think that the police have handled this in the way they handle all cases. 
Minimum Wage—Reports 
9.  
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: What recent reports has he received on proposed changes to the minimum wage? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I saw a report last week that opposes increasing the minimum wage because of its negative effect on employment. This report which is at odds with the fact that unemployment has plummeted while the minimum wage has increased comes from the leader of the National Party Don Brash. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: What other reports has he seen about the correlation between changes in the minimum wage and changes in unemployment? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I have seen a report from Treasury that found that following increases to the youth minimum wage by this Government the number of hours worked by young people has increased by 10 to 15 percent. I encourage Dr Brash to read the report before he announces any more silly policies. 
Sue Bradford 
: Does the Minister agree that low wages are a cost to the Government and that the Government is actually subsidising employers by providing additional income to low-income families through the family support package so that they can make ends meet? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: No. Low wages are not good for anyone but it is a fact that in our family support package there is some assistance in particular for low-income families so they can make ends meet. That is good for the families and good for the community. 
Fishing—Bottom Trawling 
10.  
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Fisheries 
: Does he stand by his statement of 10 June that there was no doubt bottom trawling did “considerable damage” to the environment; if so will he support a short-term moratorium on bottom trawling in international waters to protect the unique biodiversity of seamounts and coral reefs? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister of Fisheries) 
: 
 As I said at the time there is no doubt that bottom trawling can cause considerable damage. I also said at the time that the extent of damage is a subject of considerable debate. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Is the Minister concerned that New Zealand is one of just 11 nations bottom trawling on the high seas and that this technology is obliterating forever unique corals like this 1000-year-old gorgonian octacoral and hundreds of associated species that in future will be found only in Te Papa like this example? 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Where did that one come from? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: This is in the middle of a question. [ 
Interruption 
] The member has not been provoked at all. The member has stupidly interjected when he knows he should not during the asking of a question. He is very very lucky that I am generous towards him. Please conclude the question. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: I am not sure where I was. Can I start again? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes all right. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Is the Minister concerned that New Zealand is one of just 11 nations bottom trawling on the high seas and that this technology is obliterating forever unique corals like this 1000-year-old gorgonian octacoral and hundreds of associated species that in future will be found only in Te Papa like this specimen? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: The extent of damage clearly depends on the technology being used where it is being used and whether that technology is being used correctly. The member will be pleased to hear that the New Zealand commercial fishing industry has undertaken to look at the technology used in trawling with the aim of identifying the most environmentally sound equipment and techniques available. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: What has the Minister done to manage the impacts of bottom trawling? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: In 2001 19 seamounts were closed to all forms of trawling. That covers an area greater than 100000 square kilometres. As the member will know New Zealand opposes any trawling in the Ross Sea toothfish fishery. New Zealand has strongly advocated biodiversity protection in the management of fisheries in the southern Indian Ocean. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: What point is there in having a moratorium on trawling in New Zealand’s most important fishery the hoki fishery in the West Coast and Cook Strait when all New Zealand vessels pulled out on 20 August this year but even this week there are Russian and Korean charter boats from United Fisheries and Donal-Boyle Fisheries of Tauranga blatantly ignoring that moratorium; if so what is that Minister going to do about it? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I am aware of the issue to which the member refers and although it is not specifically related to the original question I can confirm that I am very mindful that over $800 million of the $1.2 billion earned from seafood exports in 2003 were from species caught by trawling methods of some kind. I can say that the Government response to the particular issue raised by the member will be apparent in the next quota-setting round. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Does he agree with the internationally renowned fishery scientist Dr Daniel Pauly that bottom trawling is “the equivalent to using bulldozers to catch rabbits”; if so why will he not heed the call of more than 1100 marine scientists from 69 nations to pause this destruction while some international rules are developed? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: The Government is always open to ideas especially those put forward by respected visiting international scientists. Ultimately New Zealand’s position will be based on factors including compatibility with longer-term moves to strengthen high-seas governance consistency with existing legal frameworks compliance issues consistency with management within fisheries jurisdictions economic costs and of course the desirability of working cooperatively with like-minded countries. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Is he aware that the 19 protected seamounts that he referred to are 19 out of 280 and that none of them are of course in the high seas they are all in New Zealand’s economic zone which is not the subject of this moratorium; and further is he aware that when the fishing industry states how much money is made from trawling it is talking also about New Zealand’s economic zone and not about the small amount in the high seas which is the subject of the moratorium? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Yes but I am pleased to tell the member that in one case she is absolutely wrong; one of those seamounts is outside the New Zealand economic zone. New Zealand and Australia have agreed to put in place a process to establish a regional fisheries management organisation which will mean a much more targeted management approach could be developed for example in the banning of bottom trawling in vulnerable areas. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Is the Minister aware with regard to regional fisheries management agreements that negotiations on such an agreement in the Indian Ocean began in 2001 and are still continuing but since then increased fishing efforts by New Zealand and Australian boats have so depleted the orange roughy fishery that there is little left to conserve; and is this kind of delay what he is advocating for the rest of the unique ecology of the high seas? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: In terms of the first and last questions yes and no. As to the body of the question I can assure the questioner that New Zealand has one of the strictest regimes for controlling the vessels fishing on the high seas. Unlike in many other countries New Zealand vessels are required to report all catch and to operate satellite monitoring systems so the ministry can know where they are at all times. They must also of course carry a Ministry of Fisheries observer when required. 
Question No. 8 to Minister 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a speech made by Mr Prebble in May of 1979 when he accused the three High Court judges in the Hunua trial of not being able to read. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. 
Document not tabled. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the judgment which unfortunately put Mr Peters in this House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. 
Document not tabled. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the ancillary document of the three High Court judges at the time who said that there was no case at all of ticks and crosses—the kind of nonsense Mr Prebble was saying. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. 
Document not tabled. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the Electoral Amendment Act where we decided to change the law. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that. Is there any objection? There is. 
Defence Force—Annual Report 
11.  
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
 to the  
Minister of Defence 
: Is he satisfied with the performance outcomes in the New Zealand Defence Force Annual Report 2003/2004; if so why? 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 I believe that good progress is being made and in many areas performance specifications were exceeded. But I do agree with the former National defence spokesperson Richard Worth that the Defence Force is still recovering from the impacts of what he stated was “nine years of neglect [which] had seen the NZDF perilously low in capability and short of the funds to correct this”. He was talking about the 1990s. 
John Carter 
: How can the Minister be satisfied when our naval combat land combat naval support and land combat support forces all note training and inter-operability inadequacies to the extent that many of them acknowledge that in general they are not prepared for higher-threat situations outside of the New Zealand – Pacific region? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: As I said good progress is being made but I would refer the member to the 1997 report after 6 years of National in Government which among many other concerns—[ 
Interruption 
] This is the 1997 report— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Would the member come to the point. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: The situation was below or not achieving “MLOC” which is the minimum level of operational capability in respect of land-combat support elements combat control communication systems long-range maritime patrol force and diving teams. This was a much worse situation. It takes years to fix the mess that Tories leave. 
John Carter 
: In light of the fact that it is 5 years since this Minister became the Minister of Defence does he not think that he could have at least provided our forces with tents camouflage nets or radios that according to the annual report our land combat forces are short of? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: That member really does need to do his homework. This Government supplied $120 million worth of communications assistance. The member asked about communications. He stood at Waiouru holding the antiquated equipment with which his Government deployed our troops. This Government has replaced that with state-of-the-art equipment. Mr Carter should get up with the facts. 
Tim Barnett 
: In what other ways do the 2003-04 performance outcomes for the Defence Force compare with those reported in any previous annual report? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: As I mentioned before when I look at the 1996-97 report after 6 years of National in defence the situation was “MLOC” which is the minimum level of operational capability and I really want to emphasise that. This compares a whole range of capabilities that were below minimum standard. This compares with this year’s report in which there were no output classes below the minimum “MLOC” requirement. Seven years ago it was reported that limitations on deployment existed due to equipment deficiencies particularly—and I want Mr Carter to listen to this—in areas of mobility communications and fire power. This Government has addressed all three of those issues. 
John Carter 
: In light of the acknowledged personnel and training issues in the annual report does the Minister believe that he will have sufficient numbers of personnel at sufficient levels of training capability to man the equipment purchased by the Government such as the 105 light armoured vehicles and the Project Protector fleet; if not what are the estimated costs of that equipment sitting around while the personnel are found to use them? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: The member cannot have it both ways. Now he is complaining that this Government is doing too much for defence. I have confidence in the Chief of Defence Force and the service chiefs with their recruitment and retention policies and with the money that this Government has pumped into pay and conditions. That lot had one Government-funded pay rise in 9 years. We have done four in four Budgets. That member should do his homework and read the back annual reports. 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Would you ask the Minister to address the question please. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thought that the Minister did address the question in far too lengthy a task. 
Independent Youth Benefit—Assessments 
12.  
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
 to the  
Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: Does he continue to stand by his statement that assessment for the independent youth benefit is “taken seriously”; if so why? 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 Yes I do. In each individual case there is a careful assessment of the young person’s personal circumstances. In particular there must be a serious reason why he or she cannot live and be supported by his or her parents. 
Marc Alexander 
: How does the Minister reconcile the statutory obligation to “determine if there has been a breakdown between a child and their parents” with parents not even being told of the allegations made against them and therefore not having any chance to put their side of the story due to the Privacy Act? When I questioned ActionWorks in Christchurch it openly admitted that it did nothing to check the facts of the youths’ story. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: A clear process has to be undertaken before an application is granted. Independent advice is sought generally from the group Special Education. There is an interview with the individual child or young person and an interview with the parents caregiver or other adult person before an assessment is made. I cannot comment on the specifics referred to by the member. 
Georgina Beyer 
: Is an independent youth benefit ever granted in a situation where the parents indicate that they are still supportive of their child? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: Yes. If after a thorough assessment by an appropriately qualified professional it is determined that there are good reasons why the child can no longer remain with the family an independent youth benefit may be granted. It is mandatory that the assessment process includes consultation with parents or guardians and if that is not possible with a significant family member or other adult. The process can and will where appropriate include family reconciliation counselling. 
Katherine Rich 
: As the Minister reportedly said that the independent youth benefit was “not given out as easily as it used to be” implying that his Government had done something to improve the present system what specific changes to the independent youth benefit can he list? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I will list the outcomes. In August 1999 3652 youth benefits were being given out. In August 2004 2377 youth benefits were being given out. That is a decrease of 34.91 percent. We do go through the process very thoroughly and I can tell that member and the House that of all the applications considered in the last financial year 41 percent were declined. It is not an automatic right. 
Katherine Rich 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister did not address my question which was about what specific changes had been made to the independent youth benefit. He spoke about outcomes but I was expecting a list of things such as changes to evaluation eligibility and monitoring. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will ask the Minister to respond to that part of the question that the member asked. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: We have been very careful to make sure that the process is gone through very thoroughly and very rigorously. It is a matter of process and about balance. It is much different from what was happening under a National Government. 
Katherine Rich 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Once again I asked a very specific question about specific changes made to a particular benefit. The Minister made no attempt to address that question. Either he knows that some changes have been made by his Government or he knows there have not been. He has been quoted as saying that the benefit is harder to get than it was. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister addressed the question. The answer might not satisfy the member but that is not my job. 
Marc Alexander 
: How does the Minister justify his Government destroying families at taxpayers’ expense without assessing the truth of the allegations spun by youths wanting to opt out of being parented when the Ministry of Social Development never checks where those kids end up living and under what conditions does not check with the schools to see whether they are turning up and has never charged parents as a result of the allegations? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: That member could not be more wrong. There is follow-up. After 8 weeks there is a requirement to follow up with the individual child and to check on his or her circumstances. The situation in such cases is that there is family breakdown. There are difficult issues to resolve and different emotions to resolve and the Government’s objective is to keep those young people at school for as long as we can and keep them on the straight and narrow so that they can get on with their lives. 
Marc Alexander 
: What will the Minister do to ensure that the independent youth benefit is not just this Government’s way of giving easy money to enable 16 and 17-year-olds to avoid being parented given that in the first half of this year 205 out of 328 applications for the independent youth benefit were granted yet those whose applications had been declined simply came back with even more concocted allegations until they did get it and have been double counted having been counted as having been declined when they actually succeeded? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: The overall figures speak for themselves. Of the total number of applications of which there were 7664—this is for the financial year 2003-04—the number of declines was 3120. The current number—applications that were granted eventually—is 2377. A declining number of applications are granted. I want to make it clear to the member that it is actually more difficult to get this benefit than it has ever been. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I just want to say to the member that his last two questions were far too long. I will listen to this one quite carefully. 
Marc Alexander 
: Why does the Minister consider his officials to be competent when in answer to my written question they admitted that they “do not collect any information on how many applicants for the independent youth benefit were declined or cancelled due to false information nor of any prosecutions as a result of false information.”— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is sufficient. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: There is a failure to collect information. It is not a question of incompetence. I have high regard for the competence of the officials. They are specifically trained and specifically tasked to do this work. I have confidence that they are doing it to the best of their ability. 
General Debates 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. It is a bad time to be a National MP and I have some very bad news for the National MPs: things can only get worse. They will get worse because it is now clear that the gamble to put in a first-term MP—a man who has never won a single election on his own has never been in Government before and has always been in the monastic cloister of the Reserve Bank—as the leader of the National Party has backfired. 
Increasingly the leader of the National Party looks like a ferret stuck in the headlights of an oncoming car. He cannot go around the country because if he does the media cane him. He cannot come back into the House because if he does the Government canes him. So Don Brash tried a new tactic this week: he sat in the House for an hour and a half and did nothing—nothing at all. Finally before question time finished he got up and tried to walk out unnoticed. Frankly he had been unnoticed until that time because he had done nothing. Don Brash looks like a ferret and a truck is coming. Its headlights are on and he is about to be run over because the National Party— 
Simon Power 
: Point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has gone too far. All members of this House are honourable members and to start to equate members with animals does lead to retaliation which becomes rather silly. I ask the member to withdraw and apologise. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I withdraw and apologise. That truck is coming because the National Party always changes its leader. Since we have been the Government National has had three leaders already and Mr Key who stays in the Chamber is already looking around eagerly waiting to move from the second bench to the first bench. He is the most ambitious first-time MP since Don Brash really to sit in this House. 
Not only has National had three changes of leader but it has changed the deputy leader four times already since the last election. National has reshuffled so often it forgot to move the senior whip off the front bench. It reshuffles all the time because it has no talent. What National ends up doing as a result is that it pushes as hard as Mr English did this week. He pushed very hard on the issue of Hauraki Plains College. He came in with a box and he sat behind that box. When we finally got the box and opened it we found the box had nothing in it at all to prove Mr English’s claims that Hauraki Plains College had done the wrong thing. He confessed that today and he has apologised. It is no wonder he apologised because Sandra Goudie had threatened to walk out of the National Party caucus if he did not pull his head in over that attack on a good school in her area. We know that is true. Everybody else in National’s caucus backed Sandra Goudie in telling Bill English to lay off one of the best schools around her electorate—and he has been forced to back down. 
Things will get worse because National has no policy. National members disagree on policy. Mr Key disagrees with Don Brash on almost everything these days. Have members noticed that very subtle disagreement all the time as Mr Key positions himself to take over the leadership? Things will get worse because of the personality differences that are right through the National Party. Mr English cannot stand Maurice Williamson and Maurice Williamson cannot stand Bill English. Can we believe that those people could ever form a Government together? Dr Smith in  
North and South 
 magazine stated that he was “dorked” by his leader. He stated that he was “screwed by the caucus”. He stated—and I quote this carefully Mr Speaker—that he did not “come to Parliament to shag spiders” whatever that means. I absolutely wonder. What does it mean to have that kind of language used by a member of Parliament who is so desperately bitter after being treated so badly by the colleagues whom he now has to somehow serve on the front bench? Things will only get worse for National because we will make them worse. Should the National members think we have finished with them I say we have not started on them. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
: 
 That was the man who led a blameless life at Massey University—and he has come out to tell everyone else that they spent their time in monastic cloisters! That matters because that Minister looks at the world through light pink lenses. While he has been looking around with his academic theories in his own sector of responsibility the polytechs have been ripping off the taxpayer for tens of millions of dollars. I will come back to that matter later. I did not apologise to Hauraki Plains College. I spoke to it about what it was doing and the best that the Government has been able to come up with is to say that the assessments in the box were not meant for assessment. That is what the Minster of Education said today. I stand by everything I have said and the big question is whether Trevor Mallard will give in now to the pressure for a National Certificate of Educational Achievement review or whether he will give in later. It is really just a matter of whether there will be a review now or later. 
I want to come back to Mr Maharey. Mr Maharey is surfing on a fiscal wave that is the product of a strong economy. He is showing the reckless disregard for taxpayers’ money that we have come to expect of the Labour Government because there is so much more of that. There is a $34 billion cumulative nominal increase in the tax take. Where is it going? Mr Maharey is overlooking the following set of circumstances. Any number of schools in our electorates run adult and community education classes and some of those classes are quite popular. They are paid for by tutors getting an hourly rate. What is happening to those classes? I want to read out an email to the Minister of Education because it is his portfolio money and his Minister mate’s portfolio money that is involved. The email is from a person who runs adult and community education courses and it states: “We have been hit from every angle—far more than just first aid and boat master computing and te reo Maori. Basically any class which was popular they”—meaning the polytechs—“have attacked.” 
What do the polytechs do? They set up an arrangement often with a voluntary agency like the coastguard or the Red Cross. They grab a course that is being taught in the local high school and turn it into an equivalent full-time student - funded course which is much more expensive. The polytechs charge the participants for the full cost of the course and share the funding between themselves and the voluntary agency when neither of them does anything. They do nothing. The participants pay for the tutor and the Government pays the voluntary agency and the polytech for enrolling the students. The Government is paying out thousands of dollars for each of those courses. I will give the example of just one small course. I will not say what it is or where it is held. But for that one small course the voluntary agency collected $125000 and the polytech collected $75000. The participants paid for the cost of the course. That is just one small course which used to be run in a high school under the auspices of adult and community education. 
If the organisations concerned were not public organisations that would be fraud. And Steve Maharey looks the other way because the people involved are all nice Labour-voting people who understand the public service and the ethics of collaborative non-competitive tertiary education. Those people are ripping the Government off day after day and then laughing behind Steve Maharey’s back. I know that because I go and talk to them. I tell them that Steve Maharey said he would get the money back and they laugh. No one believes what Steve Maharey a front-bench Minister and close confidant of the Prime Minister says because he is a totally ineffective Minister who has overseen over $100 million of polytech rip-offs for which the taxpayer is getting almost no educational value. And Steve Maharey still sits on the Government’s front bench. 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 I want to talk about the independent youth benefit—something that I questioned earlier. But before I do I just want to make one observation: amongst Labour we have an interesting dichotomy. There are those members who were sensible enough to allow United Future to push forward with the Families Commission recognising the need for such an entity to pursue the interests of the family. Yet at the same time we have another less sensible part of Labour that is doing its damnedest to destroy the families of this country. One of the members in that part of Labour I suspect is the Minister the Hon Rick Barker whose jowls and jaw seem to be flapping like a flag at the surrender of IwoJima with regard to the independent youth benefit. He utterly and totally misses the point. 
The fact is that although there are some youth at risk who do require the independent youth benefit unfortunately in many cases there is no attempt to seek out the veracity of the allegations made by the youth. Very often the youth simply wants to opt out of being parented and to be able to get access to the funds to do so without his or her very good parents being able first of all to answer back the allegations because of privacy rights. There is no determination whatsoever on the part of Action Works and of Work and Income to look at the veracity of the allegations made against the parents in the first place. It is very hard for parents to reconcile with a youth once he or she has been given a sufficient amount of money to live separately. That is very very difficult. It destroys families and destroys family relationships. 
Since 2001 we have spent $109.6 million of taxpayers’ money of which $25 million was spent in the last year on this benefit. That represents the Government trying to split kids off from their families which is utterly despicable and disgusting. It gives kids a taste of what life is like on a benefit and gives them the encouragement to pursue exactly that lifestyle. One of the other attributes that is so distasteful about the whole process is that Work and Income hands out that money yet does not then turn round and investigate the lifestyle that is being led by those youths. It does not look at their living conditions or at whom they are living with and it certainly does not back up the claim that the benefit allows kids to pursue their scholastic work at school. 
I have cases left right and centre of families that are receiving phone calls from teachers asking them why their kids are not at school. The parents are still held to be responsible for that but it is the State that allows those kids to live away from home without parental supervision. Who is to blame? When some of the parents wanted to question exactly that they were told that despite the fact that the State pays for the youths to live away from the family and despite the fact that the Government allows those kids to unmonitored in terms of whether they attend school and their living conditions parents are still held to be accountable for what those youths do. That is ridiculous. We are telling the parents of this country that they are responsible for bringing up the kids they bring into the world yet we are taking away the means by which they can be responsible for that—the means by which they can parent those kids. This Government is complicit in doing just that by failing to look at exactly how it is being done. 
There are some kids in this country who do need the independent youth benefit. They are at risk. But the problem is that the Government is doing nothing to ascertain the veracity of the allegations that are made against parents. If we expect the taxpayers to foot the bill for splitting families up then at least we should go after the parents throw the allegations at them and charge them with an offence. They should be charged for the abuse that they are supposed to have inflicted on their youths for whom taxpayers are footing the bill. It is an absolute nonsense. What we got from the Minister in answer to questions earlier was nothing but a frothy concoction that was devoid of meaning. It seems to me that when it comes to families it is not the case that the Government bites off more than it can chew but that it chews more than it can bite. The independent youth benefit acts as an incentive against reconciliation between parent and child. It is a taxpayer-funded benefit to incentivise youth to get away from the requirements of being parented and the responsibilities involved in being a member of a family. What we should do is to focus on the real abuse that occurs. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Today my colleague Ron Mark and I will outline a conspiracy to let a violent criminal walk the streets of Auckland because the police would not prosecute him for a violent crime. 
Two years ago a serious crime was committed by a potential killer in Rocky Nook Avenue in Auckland. The offender was identified and DNA-tested by the police and he confessed. This was an open-and-shut case but it never got to court and we want to know why. The offence happened at the home of Judge Coral Shaw and her husband Peter Shaw. Their lawyer John Haigh QC said that Mr Shaw had been violently attacked in a burglary and had not wanted to go through the trauma of a trial. I emphasise the lawyer’s words that his client had been “violently attacked”. He said that Mr Shaw remains a victim. Mr Shaw of course claimed that there had been a burglary at his home that he was attacked and that he rang the police to lodge a complaint of aggravated burglary at his home. Mr Haigh said that his client was like many victims: he did not want to relive his situation by going through the prosecution process. 
I want to know what is going on in New Zealand. Let us look at these facts. They are coming out very slowly but they are coming. There was a violent incident at the Shaw home but was it a burglary? The police had a suspect and they identified this man by DNA. The police had more: they had a confession. In short they had an open-and-shut case against Phillip Edwards but it did not proceed. They did not need at any time Peter Shaw as a witness. 
So the reason that the public has been given today yesterday and for the last few weeks is balderdash. If there is a killing as in a murder case the victim obviously cannot appear in court. This cut-and-dried case would have put a killer behind bars but it was dropped and we want to know why. Who made the decision to let a violent criminal with over 50 offences many violent go free? Who decided to cover up this case and mark the file “Confidential” and “not available for any authorised disclosure”? Who wrote on the police file the following: “Edwards was spoken to and admitted the burglary on the understanding that it would never be used against him or published in any way.”? Why when the police have the man’s modus operandi was he not charged? What is the Minister of Police not telling New Zealand today? Why did the police threaten on three occasions one of which was in writing the television programme  
20/20 
? 
Simon Power 
: What! 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: They threatened the television programme not once but on three occasions one of which was in writing. Whom is the Minister covering up for and whom is he protecting? He has now had weeks to apprise himself of all aspects of this case yet he sits there and argues that it is the job of the police and that he is not responsible. What will it take for that incompetent Minister to realise his responsibility? We have had a murder here yet the guy gets a conviction for manslaughter because this case never even got to trial—a case that was identical to the McNee case in many ways. Who is the Minister protecting? How can he say the police are tough on violent offenders when killers are allowed to walk free in the streets of New Zealand? And how many other cases are there like this? For there will be others. What is the Minister hiding and why should he not be required by his leader the Prime Minister of this country to resign? I cannot conceive of any self-respecting Western democracy allowing a Minister to get away with that—allowing him to abrogate himself of all responsibility and say it is someone else’s job to tell the public what was going on. This is a man who got up in the House last week and said that crime is down in New Zealand. 
Ron Mark 
: No wonder! 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: No wonder—he does not prosecute violent criminals! [ 
Interruption 
] No wonder—he does not prosecute murderers! 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Is the outburst from the Minister of State Services permissible? In reference to figures on crime he yelled out across the House that crime is down because Ron Mark was out of the country. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Let me put it this way. I try not to interrupt the debate and I try not to call attention to comments being made. Now that the member has mentioned the comment it will of course appear in  
Hansard 
—it would not have. The comment having been made I thought it was an inappropriate one but it was not actually out of order. I thought it was a passing comment made across the House by way of interjection. His own leader has made many more-effective ones. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I deplore what Winston Peters is doing. What Winston Peters is doing is using this House to attack individuals in a way that he is not prepared to do outside. [ 
Interruption 
] This member has the lawyers’ bills to show that he does say outside what he says in the House. The point that must be made is I am pleased that we do not have a country in which the Minister of Police decides on prosecutions. That is a matter for the police and will always be. 
But the point I want to make is that it is good is it not to have a leader of an Opposition party who has a presence in the House—someone who fronts up to the House someone who makes comments to the House. 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Speakers’ rulings 23/7 and 24/1 specifically refer to the convention that reference to the absence of a member from the Chamber is out of order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member did not make that comment. He said “a presence in the House”. I thought he was referring to a member’s overall contribution. Certainly if he had mentioned whether that member was in the House at this moment that would have been out of order. But I did not take that comment to be out of order at all. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Is it not good to have the leader of an Opposition party who is a regular attender of the House—someone who makes a contribution in the House someone who is not afraid to ask questions of the Prime Minister? I do not know why Don Brash earns $5700 on average for each question he asks in this place when Winston Peters is doing his job for him. If I were Mr Peters I would put in for a pay rise. Maybe we have to get to the point where the Leader of the Opposition is appointed by a vote of Opposition parties because that way they might have an arrangement whereby they get someone who is prepared to do an honest day’s work—and that would be a change. 
Bill English is someone whose behaviour over the last 2 weeks has also been deplorable. He dumped on a school using material that he claimed was assessment material but that was not used in the final assessments. 
Katherine Rich 
: It said “assessment book”. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: That member clearly does not understand; Bill English did. He took the word of a liar—someone who was facing competency procedures. He took stolen material and he brought it to this House. He indicated to the House that there was a problem when the problem had been long fixed. He knew it but for a cheap political point Bill English dragged Hauraki Plains College’s very good name—a good rural school with a wonderful reputation in its area and to which kids come from right around the region because of its quality—through the mud. Let me make it clear: the only person who did anything wrong was the teacher who was facing competency procedures. That is the person who stole the workbooks and that is the person who put students up for credits that they should not have got and he was acted on. He had been acted on long before Bill English came into the picture. So what happened? Bill English in order to make a cheap political point came to the House used the words of a liar and attempted to mislead everyone here. That is deplorable. I agree with what Sandra Goudie said at National’s caucus yesterday. 
Simon Power 
: Oh come on! 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Oh come on! The whole of Bellamy’s is talking about what happened in the National Party caucus yesterday and if I were her I would have walked as she threatened to do. If National had a leader worth his salt the apology that Bill English has made privately to the school would be made public. If the National Party’s leader was worth anything we would see some leadership from the National Party and Bill English would apologise. 
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
: 
 After the speech from that member I can only conclude he is jet-lagged. We had a member criticising another member by saying that he has not been doing an honest day’s work. Who said that? Trevor Mallard a Minister who recently returned from swanning around the world sipping champagne at the Olympics working on his tan and taking the credit for the Olympic glory of those hard-working Kiwis. He could not even get the haka right. It was an embarrassment. That Minister was talking about cheap political points and I have two words to say to that: Tuku’s underpants. Was that a cheap political point? 
It is very interesting that today the Minister for Social Development and Employment Steve Maharey led the debate. That Minister more than any other Minister in this House has been responsible for public money going down the drain. Tax and spend tax and spend—Michael Cullen collects the money and Minister Maharey spends it. What does he spend it on? Things like bread-tag earring projects. 
Simon Power 
: That worked. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: That worked really well. I hear they retail at $2 a pair. Then there was the hip hop tour where someone had the opportunity to travel for 70 days to research how hip hop got to New Zealand. It included a Paris stop-over a nice wee stop-over in Fiji not to mention the chill-out period in Hawaii. Where is the report from the trip? We have not seen it. Labour is proud of those sorts of projects such as craft trips to Melbourne. Many New Zealanders would like to go on craft trips to Melbourne; the difference is we do not expect other taxpayers to fund them. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: This is from the member who had 6 months off. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: There speaks that member once again. I wonder how his jet lag is. He had better work on that tan as it appears Athens was not hot enough for him. Michael Cullen has collected $34 billion more than he needed and Minister Maharey has spent it on a wide range of projects that have gone absolutely nowhere. So much for the “life of blameless excellence”! The life of blameless excellence is becoming somewhat tarnished as the result of a lot of hip hop tours dodgy projects and of course I must mention the bread-tag earrings once again. 
National has had a huge amount to say about these dodgy projects but I will spend some time looking at a report from the Government’s own officials. Let us look into the Government’s report on the capacity-building grants—which for members who may not recall used to be called closing the gaps before Helen Clark banned that term. These capacity-building grants have been fraught with difficulty. The report found that the guidelines for the grants were relaxed at the end of the financial year. Staff thought “Oh gee we have a whole lot of money that hasn’t been spent. Let’s start to dish it out.” Staff found that the guidelines were difficult to understand and unworkable. The grants were not supposed to be used to pay salaries but workers went out and told organisations that if they called someone a researcher a project manager or a facilitator then using the grants for that purpose was OK. These grants have been a joke. As for the Pacific organisational development funding the reporting was so poor that it is difficult to generalise about the results. 
The sad thing is we are not talking about tens of thousands of dollars; we are talking about millions and millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money that has been spent on projects purporting to be about community development but do little more than furnish someone’s pockets. Yesterday in the House I raised an issue about a $19000 grant that had gone to the Aotearoa Rugby Football League. That $19000 was supposed to be put towards producing a business plan. No one has seen this business plan. I cannot find anyone who has seen it. Not only was the money not allocated to the many cost categories that were in the original application; there were just four neat payments to a Labour Party official who just happened to own the company that has made the most of that particular contract. Minister Maharey then called in KPMG. It was a whitewash. 
LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I would describe that speech as a bit rich coming from that member. Katherine Rich comes from the party that says it stands for one law for all. She opposes paid parental leave for every woman and man in this country—every parent—except herself. She was happy to take paid parental leave when she had her children but she denies it to every other person in this country. I think it has been a little bit of “follow my leader” from young Ms Rich. Don Brash opposes 4 weeks’ annual leave for everyone except himself. He made sure that 4 weeks’ annual leave was in his contract when he was Governor of the Reserve Bank. [ 
Interruption 
] Yes he takes a holiday every week. 
I was talking to a National Party supporter the other day who said that National had offered him no reason to vote National. He thought the Orewa speech would not have a lasting impact on public opinion because for a party to get into Government there had to be real substance behind the leadership. There had to be substance within the leadership but substance behind it would have been good as well. Unlike me this guy thought that Don Brash was an excellent Governor of the Reserve Bank. He felt that is where he should have stayed because he is making no mark on this Parliament whatsoever. This National Party voter expressed frustration at the lack of policy coming out of the National Party. He felt this had much to do with the deep divisions between Don Brash and the spokespersons on finance social development and education. Don Brash is at odds with his key spokespersons. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Did you hear what Katherine Rich said then? 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I am sorry but I did not. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It was most offensive. She should apologise. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Did the member make a derogatory comment? 
Katherine Rich 
: I think I did Madam Speaker. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Would you withdraw and apologise? 
Katherine Rich 
: I withdraw. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: And apologise if it was a derogatory comment. 
Katherine Rich 
: And I apologise. 
LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Don Brash is at odds with his “Key”spokesperson as well as his “Rich” and “English” ones. It is this failure to resolve huge differences of opinion that has left National with nothing more than the Orewa speech and a law and order speech that was heavy on rhetoric and light on detail and substance. 
There was also frustration expressed about the lack of depth on the National Party’s front bench. Someone else put it more succinctly when he said there was something wrong with a party when its old guard was as young as Tony Ryall Nick Smith and Bill English. He could equally have commented that it was odd that the new guard had been in Parliament for 2 years and would be eligible for superannuation next year. This is not the once-proud National Party where the old guard was old and the Young Turks were young. 
But that was not the real issue for this National Party supporter. He thought it was bad enough that National had no policy no depth in its front bench and nothing in its caucus to offer this country but he said that Don Brash had done something that even he could not accept. It was one thing to bag New Zealand inside New Zealand; it was another to bag New Zealand overseas. That was an absolute disgrace in his book and I agree. It was tantamount to economic sabotage and that man stands guilty as charged of economic sabotage of this country. 
The newspapers in what they have printed back that up. The  
Dominion Post  
said: “Dr Brash has no obligation to follow or promote a government line. It would be odd if he did. But nor is his role to go overseas and bag and belittle the country in which he wants to be prime minister.” The Christchurch  
Press 
 stated: “National should by now be giving more detail on what it would do differently if it came to power. It is all very well to carp and criticise but voters need more on which they can judge whether the party would be a potential alternative government.” In the  
New Zealand Herald 
 Fran O’Sullivan stated: “National’s leader would have made a much more useful contribution if he had spelled out where his party stood on the single market and other measures which will avert his prediction of a failed state. Instead his article reads as little more than a summation of why he came into politics. The net impression from the Brash article is that anyone who lives in New Zealand is a loser—investor or individual. What it doesn’t say is why he bothers to stay and what he will do.” 
And that is because he is the loser National is the loser and this country is the loser when an Opposition leader goes overseas and bags our country. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 This morning the Human Rights Commission released a report on the state of human rights in New Zealand today. I hope the Government will not dismiss it lightly. What that report shows is that while we are doing pretty well in some areas like improvements to the monitoring of human rights we are still not achieving what we should be in a number of other critical areas like how we treat our children and a whole lot of other people who tend to be marginalised and treated with a culture of contempt by the structures of our society. Some of the key issues highlighted by this report include the large number of our children and young people who still experience poverty neglect and abuse; the widespread barriers that prevent many people living with impairments from full participation in society; the vulnerability of all of those who are in any form of detention or institutional care; the endemic social and economic inequities that face Maori and Pacific Island people particularly; and the ongoing significance of the challenge of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and what it could and should mean in terms of truly responsible governance. 
While a lot of the material used in the report is already well known such as the fact that nearly a third of our country’s children are still living in poverty and the fact that our children have the fifth-highest rate of death by maltreatment in the OECD the commission’s achievement has been to bring key information together within a human rights framework having consulted with some 5000 people whose views should certainly not be ignored. The commission and those it consulted also contribute a whole range of suggestions about where we need to do better and while I realise that the Government is developing an action plan to be released later this year I hope it does not feel it has to wait until then before starting to take concrete action on at least some of the issues raised. 
I turn to just a couple of those issues which is all I have time to do today. The report highlights the fact that New Zealand still does not acknowledge in our legislation any universal right to adequate housing as does for example the UK. There is no systematic monitoring of housing law for things like security of tenure affordability or accessibility. Children are suffering as a result of a lack of access to stable and secure housing and Maori Pacific Island people and disabled people continue to be disadvantaged. Those findings are backed up by the real-life experiences of ordinary people all over this country. I have been visiting a number of community groups working on housing issues over the last few weeks and the reality of what is going on in some of our urban and rural communities is nothing short of a disgrace. After 5 years of a Labour Government and the very welcome reintroduction of income-related rents for State housing we still find ourselves with waiting lists that are completely outstripping any willingness by the State to cope; with Housing New Zealand Corporation staff who apparently actively discourage people from going on to the waiting lists; and with a large number of people who continue to live in substandard and/or overcrowded housing—or not in houses at all. 
The Green Party believes that the Government should make manifest in legislation a universal right to adequate housing. The Government—and local government for that matter—should accept a role in providing housing for those most in need. That includes people who literally do not have a roof over their heads today. The Government should be a lot more open to looking at new options for providing social housing through support for genuine third-sector finance and building initiatives which could help begin to break down our current almost total dependence on the private and State sectors for the provision of social housing. 
On the issue of the abuse and neglect of children I note that the report makes no bones about calling for the repeal of section 59 of the Crimes Act. Again this is something our current Government could do with no fiscal impact and with no mucking about if it had the will to do so as it can certainly be assured of the Green Party’s backing in implementing such legislation immediately. We do not have to wait for more action plans or elections to repeal section 59 of the Crimes Act or to do more for people in severe housing need. Labour could and should use this report as a blueprint for action right now. I commend the Human Rights Commission and all the people and groups that have worked with it in putting together this report and I truly hope it will have a real and positive impact on some of our most negative statistics before too many months go by. 
MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 I have some questions for Don Brash and I wonder whether he will answer those questions as I go through them. 
Hon David Carter 
: I can answer. 
John Key 
: We can answer. 
MARK PECK 
: I do not want the quislings in the front row who are pretending to be Don Brash to answer the question; I want Don Brash to answer. The first question is: why is it that from June this year he has asked only four primary questions in the House before today? 
Simon Power 
: He’s down in Invercargill getting votes. 
MARK PECK 
: If the rabble on the front bench could just be quiet! Even Don Brash says that it is impossible to rank the front bench. I want Don Brash to explain why since June this year he has asked only four primary questions until today. And why did he flog John Key’s question today after John Key did all the work on it yesterday? I would like to ask him those particular questions but I cannot hear any answer from Don Brash. I would happily yield my call right now to Don Brash if he would like to answer those questions. 
I have another question for Don Brash. I want him to tell me now—perhaps he could tell me by way of interjection—whether it is National’s policy to get rid of the nuclear ban by lunchtime. Is that the policy? He is being very quiet. I cannot hear a response from him and I would be quite happy right now to yield my position to Don Brash if he would answer that particular question. Why did Dr Brash not stick up for his MP from Tamaki Clem Simich? Can he please tell us? There is no answer—there is absolutely no answer to that particular question. I have a very good question for him. Why did he go to Australia and bag our country to the Aussies? Why did he—Dr Brash the Leader of the Opposition—go to Australia and bag our country to Australians? That is the closest thing to treachery one can get in the House—we do not like Australians! The only thing we like about Australians is when we take the Bledisloe Cup from them! 
We saw a cartoon that shows Don Brash going through immigration in Australia with a sign over his back that says “The end is nigh we are doomed” and an Aussie immigration man saying: “He says his name is Brash and he’s got a message of encouragement for Australian investors and tourists when he is in charge.” Where was the message of encouragement? Fran O’Sullivan got it right when she said: “At least he could have outlined a prescription for things to do.” And before the rich person over there starts saying: “What about Clark?” let me say that Helen Clark wherever she went in the world set out a prescription of hope for this country as she talked to international audiences. Not once did she bag our nation to the Australians. 
I am not finished with Don Brash yet. I want him to tell the House how he ranks his front bench. Who are the people on his front bench who are any good? [ 
Interruption 
] That was absolutely not an answer at all. But that is not unusual. When we look at the front bench we see really only one person National’s “Key” spokesperson who is really looking forward to taking over the position. I ask Don Brash this question: does he agree with John Key’s assessment of the superannuation fund or will it like the nuclear policy be gone by lunchtime? 
I am getting a little tired of Dr Brash not answering these questions. I want to ask him one very direct question: how can he put his hand out on pay day and take his pay? I want Dr Brash to tell me how he fills in his days in this place. I know he is going to Invercargill to speak to a Rotary club. I know that because the club cannot sell the tickets. It has had to advertise to get people to buy tickets. What a wimpy Leader of the Opposition! 
JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) 
: 
 That was all but a valedictory speech from the bitter member for Invercargill. I do not blame him for being bitter because his own career has basically been truncated. He has had to toss in the towel because he knows he is unelectable in Invercargill. That is what happens when one’s community is destroyed after Trevor Mallard is let loose on one’s electorate. Mr Peck has to toss in the towel and find another job because he has nowhere else to go. That is what happens when Trevor Mallard is in one’s electorate. 
Yesterday that self-proclaimed Olympian Trevor Mallard came to the House to answer a question. He was back from his Evers-Swindell photo shoot. He came to the House to answer a very simple and straightforward question: “What was the cumulative nominal increase in taxes since 1999?”. I sat with bated breath waiting for the answer. What did I get? I saw Trevor Mallard that self-proclaimed Olympian hide under the cloak of cleverness. He whispered: “$12.793 billion” to the House because he was ashamed to give the real answer which he knew of course was $33.992 billion. Extra taxes worth $33.992 billion have been robbed from the dinner tables seats and pockets of all New Zealanders. He was ashamed to come to the House to answer that question so he hid under the cloak of cleverness. That came from a man who has truncated and destroyed the career of Mark Peck. Boy there will be interesting leaving drinks when Mark Peck leaves this House in about 12 months’ time! 
The Hon Dr Michael Cullen is the “bag man”. His bag is overflowing with the efforts of hard-working of New Zealanders. There are $34 billion worth of extra taxes in his bag. What does he do with that bag? 
Opposition Member 
: Where has it all gone? 
JOHN KEY 
: Well he transfers his booty of extra taxes from the seventh floor to his friendly sidekick on the sixth floor “Big Spendin’ Steve”. “Big Spendin’ Steve” gets the bag with the $34 billion worth of extra taxes and what does he decide to do with it? 
Phil Heatley 
: What does he spend it on? 
JOHN KEY 
: He wastes it. That is what he decides to do. Under his nose Steve Maharey has a raft of rorts that he executes with glee. Shall I tell members about the raft of rorts? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The suggestion that a member is rorting is something that is quite unparliamentary and should be withdrawn. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I ask the member whether that is what he said. 
JOHN KEY 
: Not at all. What spending programmes from the sixth floor have we seen? There have been hip hop tours slush funds in the order of tens of millions of dollars for polytechnics and courses for singing humming and listening to the radio not to mention— 
Simon Power 
: “Sing along with Steve”. 
JOHN KEY 
: “Sing along with Steve” is very popular. It is like sucking saltwater through one’s nose while playing twilight golf. [ 
Interruption 
] Yes—craft trips to Melbourne. It reads like a list of things people could do when they have nothing else to do and it is all funded out of the $34 billion worth of extra taxes that have come from the hard-working people of New Zealand. Kiwis have had enough. They have said that they want all that flaky spending from Steve Maharey to end. They would like a refund of their hard-earned taxes. In case members have missed the facts—because that self-proclaimed Olympian forgot to tell them when he came to the House yesterday—here they are. Fact: $34 billion in additional taxes has been taken from the hard-working individuals and businesses of New Zealand since 1999. Fact: individuals are paying 35 percent more than when the Government came into office in 1999. Fact: 3 million taxpayers in this country are all paying an additional $2800 each per year. Could the Government not find better things to do with it than fund the flaky things that have been coming out of Steve Maharey’s office on the sixth floor? Fact: companies in New Zealand are paying 72 percent more than they were paying in 1999 but the Government does not seem to think that is a big problem. It is not concerned about companies doing that. As Dr Don Brash quite rightly pointed out today this Government is forcing companies in New Zealand into a most uncompetitive position. In 1999 when the Government came into office the company tax rate in New Zealand was 33 percent. Today it stands at 33 percent. So in one respect we can say there has been no change. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I call Ron Mark. 
SIMON POWER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I apologise to my colleague Ron Mark but according to the list I have in front of me the next call should go to the Maori Party. I wonder whether you could advise the House as to how matters are to proceed from this point. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The next party that is due for the call is New Zealand First and it will take it. The 12th spot can then be reallocated if the member from the Maori Party does not turn up by the time the 12th spot comes up. 
SIMON POWER 
: I ask that you clarify for the House whether in the event that a party is not able to take an allocated call it is then the case that the call moves to the next allocated party and that an unallocated slot remains at the end of the speaking list. If that is the case could you please advise the House how you intend to allocate that final spot. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: My thinking at this stage is that ACT has not had a call. [ 
Interruption 
] I was going to speak to the ACT member in a minute. Every now and again in the general debate a party does not get a call. Because ACT is not getting a call today it seems reasonable to me that ACT members be asked whether they would like that call—if the member from the Maori Party does not come before the 12th call. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 There are three tenets of policing that are absolutely adhered to in normal circumstances by the police of this nation. They are firstly to detect crime; secondly to apprehend offenders; and thirdly to prevent crime from occurring. The police are charged to uphold the law without fear or favour. In the case of Phillip Layton Edwards clearly that has not been the case. 
Further there is a convention that if the police have all the evidence they must prosecute. Standard domestic violence and rape cases are occasions where they totally adhere to that convention. But as we look at the situation that is unfolding in the Phillip Edwards case as it involves Mr Peter Shaw it is quite clear that for some obscure and odd reason the police have chosen to break with that convention. 
I raise another point which is about the oath of office that every police officer takes. That oath states: “I do swear that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign Lady the Queen in the Police without favour or affection malice or ill-will until I am legally discharged; that I will see and cause Her Majesty’s peace to be kept and preserved; and I will prevent to the best of my power all offences against the peace; and that while I continue to hold the said office I will to the best of my skill and knowledge discharge all the duties thereof faithfully according to the law. So help me God.” That is the oath of office that every police officer takes. The question is why the police did not adhere to their oath follow the conventions and charge Phillip Layton Edwards with a reported aggravated burglary of Judge Shaw’s home. Why? 
People ask why I should pursue this issue. Why should New Zealand First pursue this issue? I want to give the House the reason. The police knew the violent nature and tendencies of Mr Edwards. They had him in custody and they had a case against him with a DNA strike and a confession yet they still failed to prosecute him on this charge. Again we have to ask why. 
I want to give the House an idea of why he was in jail. This is from the sentencing notes of Judge Rea in the Napier District Court: “The complainant and three small children were at the house. You”—being Edwards—“became angry when you were woken by a telephone call. You accused the complainant”—Edwards’ girlfriend—“of deliberately making more noise than she needed to wake you up. When she denied this you lifted her from the chair where she was and you punched her in the face. This caused her to fall to the ground where you punched her and at one point tried to strangle her. She feared for her life and she asked if she could go outside for a cigarette. You agreed and when she went outside and tried to run off down the road you followed her but you did not want her to leave. You were yelling threats and abuse at her all along the way throughout this exercise in an effort to get her back to the house. You grabbed her by the hair and tried to drag her back. You held her by the hair with one hand while punching her several times in the face with the other. By this time the two of you were out on the street and the incident was being witnessed by another person who drove towards you in a car. Fearing for your girlfriend’s safety this other person drove towards you and parked alongside. She called you to stop what you were doing. She tooted the car horn to try to get the attention of neighbours or someone else to come to help. Your response was to abuse her swear at her and threaten to smash her car. Not surprisingly she was frightened and locked herself in the car. You then went back to your girlfriend and continued to beat her up in the same manner as before. The lady did a U-turn tried to help and eventually gave up and sought the assistance of the police.” 
That is the nature of Phillip Layton Edwards and the police knew all of that detail when they got a DNA strike and a confession in relation to a reported aggravated burglary of the home of a member of the judiciary. Why did the police not prosecute Mr Edwards in the interests of the safety of the public? A prosecution would have eventually preserved the life of Mr David McNee. 
TARIANA TURIA (Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 I was interested to read an article in  
Te Nupepa o te Tairawhiti 
entitled “The Treaty of Waitangi—The Legal Perspective”. The article stated: “The Treaty of Waitangi and what it means what happened after its signing and the implications of section 71 of the New Zealand Constitution Act 1852 could it may be argued be seen as evidence that many Maori rights existed and continued into the new legal order. This information is absolutely vital for underpinning our constitutional basis as a nation. Our country is desperately in need of information to identify the nature of rights which existed for tangata whenua prior to the treaty in order to establish means by which to continue these rights into the new legal system. It is indeed a call for enshrining the treaty into a written constitution for Aotearoa New Zealand.” 
The writer of this article is one of our leading lights of the judiciary. She is the kaiwhakawa of the Tai RawhitiMaori Land Court based at Gisborne. She has been a law lecturer at the University of Waikato and at Victoria University of Wellington. A specialist in international human rights she was also a Harkness Fellow to the USA. Indeed Judge Caren Wickliffe is well qualified to advise us on critical issues of constitutional significance given her legal and academic breadth. 
Judge Wickliffe is also of NgatiPorou descent. It is this last statement that seems to have incurred the wrath of the executive specifically both the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General. Earlier this year the Prime Minister queried the judge’s ability to preside over proceedings from East Coast foreshore and seabed claimants stating that the judge is of NgatiPorou descent and this case concerns NgatiPorou. Such a claim was made with little concern that the  
Cabinet Manual  
specifically instructs that Ministers should not express any views that are likely to be published where they could be regarded as reflecting adversely on the impartiality personal views or ability of any judge. Clearly the Prime Minister considers that the ethnicity of Judge Wickliffe adversely affects her impartiality her personal views and her ability as a judge. 
Then today in the  
Independent 
 the Attorney-General is reported as stating that by virtue of Judge Wickliffe’s connections with NgatiPorou she has a direct interest in the outcome of the judicial applications. Given the sophisticated and complex networks of whakapapa we possess as tangata whenua it would seem that very few Maori judges are actually able to hear a case. Of course what would be fascinating to know is exactly how many cases Judge Wickliffe presided over in Tai Rawhiti that were connected to NgatiPorou and how many times perceptions of bias and allegation have been raised in those previous instances—or is it more to do with the substance of this case? The House will recall that the background to this case is that Judge Wickliffe rejected Crown attempts to prevent East Coast foreshore and seabed claimants from proceeding to a substantive hearing for the case to seek freehold title to about 200 kilometres of coastline between Gisborne and Cape Runaway. The Crown had wanted a stay on the proceedings because of the proposed foreshore and seabed legislation. 
We have here an interesting case of the Crown wanting to control the judiciary and its institutions in light of its own actions to fundamentally undermine the Treat of Waitangi. In referring to the treaty it is essential to consider the nature of the partnership between iwi and hapu the holders of tino rangatiratanga and the Crown. For more than a century the Crown has striven to minimise the importance of this relationship and as a consequence the partnership is in disarray. This is to the advantage of the Crown but the disadvantage of the nation. The partnership has of course been threatened and under intense scrutiny in the aftermath of the introduction of the Foreshore and Seabed Bill. Throughout the course of the submissions received on this bill tangata whenua and tauiwi alike have stated that the actions of this Government have placed increased tension on race relations in this country. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Maori Fisheries Bill 
Second Reading 
Debate resumed from 31 August. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 As I commented very briefly at the closing stages of this debate last evening National will cautiously support the Maori Fisheries Bill only because of the significant changes made during the select committee process. I say at the outset that this is one of those cases when the select committee process has been very worthwhile and I am pleased that the Minister of Fisheries has agreed to the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee’s changes. This is in sharp contrast to the situation regarding the next bill on the Order Paper the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) where the Minister has chosen to ignore completely the work done by the select committee. 
The bill is before us today to further progress the deed of settlement signed in 1992 between the National Government of the day—represented by the Rt Hon Sir Douglas Graham and the Hon Doug Kidd—and Maori as a means of progressing grievances around Treaty of Waitangi issues. There was a unique opportunity 14 years ago when a brief window of opportunity was available to an imaginative Government which was supported as I understand—although I was not in Parliament at the time—by Parliament almost in its entirety. At that time a very significant investment conglomerate Brierley Investments determined that it wanted to exit its shareholding of Sealord’s fisheries a very large Nelson-based fishing company. I understand that this agreement was cobbled together in about 3 weeks with an acknowledgment by all signatories that it would then take some time to devolve a way of moving the assets out to the various Maori themselves so that they could control the resource and better it for themselves. 
I have to say that in recent discussions I had with my former colleague Doug Graham I learnt that he certainly did not envisage that it would be a 14-year process. But we are today supporting this bill because at least it moves that process forward quite significantly. The legislation is still not perfect but it is important to get this step under way so that the resource ends up with its rightful owners Maori with the benefits being delivered to Maori themselves. 
It is appropriate at this particular time to comment on the deed of settlement and the Government’s extraordinary attempts to extend that document. Only last week I listened with huge interest to the Hon John Tamihere who gave an amazing rendition of his interpretation of the deed of settlement of 1992. It was the most incredible account I have ever heard of that document. In fact it was nothing more than a desperate attempt to widen the deed of settlement beyond what was ever envisaged 14 years ago. For Mr Tamihere to come into this House and argue that the deed of settlement now extends well beyond New Zealand territorial waters into international seas is a huge stretch of anybody’s imagination including the Hon John Tamihere’s. The Government should be very careful when attempting to rewrite the deed of settlement of 1992. To do so will do nothing to further race relations in this country and will put us back many many years in terms of the grievance settlement process under the Treaty of Waitangi. 
I want to comment on a couple of the significant changes made by the select committee that mean that the legislation is now presented back to the House in far better shape than it was when it went to the select committee. There was the issue of recognition of individual iwi and their ability to get control of the assets as quickly as possible. In this regard the select committee has recognised a process whereby those who are operating significantly in their own right as commercial entities do not have to jump through a series of hurdles to try to establish their credibility with the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission. In my area NgaiTahu has to now be recognised as the largest commercial entity in the whole of the South Island and it was therefore quite illogical for the previous Minister of Fisheries Pete Hodgson to have suggested in the original drafting of the legislation that it be required to jump through hurdles and hoops to prove its commercial expertise. The select committee has sensibly recognised that and has acknowledged that any such iwi provided that they satisfy three criteria will receive recognition. Those three criteria are that they are formally structured and accountable to their members that they have established an asset-holding company and finally that they have already been accepted by the Crown as having a mandate for Treaty of Waitangi settlement processes. NgaiTahu clearly fits that bill. 
The second significant select committee change was around coastline agreements and the ability or inability because of disputes to progress allocation of resources. In many cases these issues of who has jurisdiction over particular pieces of coastline and who therefore has entitlement because of their association with that coastline have been largely agreed but they have not been totally agreed. The select committee resolved that where majority agreement has been reached distribution should be allowed to occur on that basis but that the area still in dispute should be held back and not distributed. I think that is a very sensible position taken by the select committee and I congratulate the members of the select committee on reaching that decision. 
Of course this legislation is about compromise. The issue of distribution of assets has been an ongoing argument and disagreement amongst Maori as they decide who is entitled to what. This legislation has sensibly suggested that in the main—but not entirely I might hasten to add—inshore fishery distributions will be on the basis of affiliation to coastline whereas in the main but not entirely offshore fisheries will be distributed on the basis of population of iwi. The select committee has facilitated distribution and I applaud that. The last thing I want to see as a member of Parliament is this legislation simply being a replacement of what we have had in the past with assets still being tied up and with various iwi still unable to have their opportunity to do something with them. 
My final comments are about Helen Clark and her apparent decision to reshuffle Cabinet in the not too distant future. This legislation messy as it was was presented by the Hon Pete Hodgson. Helen Clark sensibly sacked him as the Minister of Fisheries but I am afraid she has now replaced him with David Benson-Pope and his track record so far is just as disastrous. So I implore the Prime Minister that when she does the reshuffle—I know that talent is thin on the other side of the House—she takes note of the importance of the fishing industry to the New Zealand economy. Will she please attempt to find somebody within the thin ranks of talent on the Labour Government benches with some ability to understand the importance of legislation and to get it into the House in a far less messy state than the Maori Fisheries Bill was when it entered Parliament? 
In closing I take this opportunity to thank the select committee for delivering back legislation that is a substantial improvement on what it was when it went to the select committee. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee by majority be agreed to. 
Ayes 102 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 17 
Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Question agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Maori Fisheries Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 102 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 17 
Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Bill read a second time. 
Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) 
Third Reading 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister of Fisheries) 
: 
 I move  
That the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) be now read a third time 
. This bill amends the Fisheries Act 1996 as well as the Fisheries Act 1983 and the Fisheries Amendment Act (No 2) 2004. Part 3 of the bill was reported back separately and received royal assent on Thursday 12 August 2004 as the Fisheries Amendment Act (No 4). 
It is essential to progress the matters in this bill. The Supplementary Order Paper 246 reflects many of the concerns raised by the Primary Production Committee in its report back to this House. This bill contains a number of provisions that will improve the 1996 Fisheries Act so that it can better achieve its purpose which is to provide for utilisation of fisheries resources while ensuring sustainability. These improvements include providing more direction as to when the quota management system will be used to manage fisheries improving the way quota is allocated when a species is brought into the quota management system revising the current regime for authorising access to commercial fisheries removing the permit moratorium that is unnecessarily impeding use of our fisheries resources extending coverage of the quota management system to provide for improved management of highly migratory species beyond New Zealand fisheries waters and enabling the introduction into the quota management system of green-lipped mussels in area GLM9 on 1 October 2004. 
This bill provides for improvements in the way fisheries resources will be managed so that the purpose of the 1996 Fisheries Act can be better achieved. I am delighted to commend the bill to the House. 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 The National Party will not be voting for this bill. It is not because we are short of information; indeed we had submission after submission telling us of the holes in this legislation. But we should be lacking information because during the Committee stage yesterday and last week the Minister took only one call over 3 hours of debate and just now he spoke for a total of 93 seconds of what should have been a 10-minute speech. It is absolutely appalling to see a Minister of Fisheries in the chair during the Committee stage not take more than one call and then give only a 93-second speech in the third reading. That was made worse by the fact that a 17-page Supplementary Order Paper drafted by the Minister’s officials was presented during the Committee stage. The bill as introduced was substantially only 32 pages long. In other words the amendments were half again the length of the bill. So I am disappointed in the Minister in respect of addressing questions about the bill. 
National opposes the third reading and we have four substantive concerns. The first is the Minister’s intention to manage fisheries outside New Zealand waters. This Minister intends to manage highly migratory species—in particular tuna species—in the seas of Fiji the seas of China and Madagascar the Indian Ocean and off the coast of South America. It is absolutely nuts. When I received the consultation papers in the Primary Production Committee I saw no submission from the Chinese Government. I saw no input from the Fijian people. Those living in India seem to have no say on the matter. I would like to put to the House that this Minister of Fisheries wants to manage fish species in territorial waters of other countries and the people do not even know about it. 
Worse than that he intends to give 20 percent of quota caught in those fishing zones—in the territorial seas of other countries and in the high seas—to Maori. I do not know whether Maori historically had any intention of catching tuna off the coast of Madagascar Fiji or any other country in the South Pacific or throughout the rest of the world. I cannot see why Maori should be given 20 percent of that quota. 
We were misinformed in the Parliament yesterday I think by the Rt Hon Winston Peters and others who said that National signed the 1992 Maori fisheries settlement and intended at that time that Maori would receive a proportion of fish quota caught in the territorial waters of other countries. That is not the case. We signed an agreement that would see Maori receive 20 percent of quota that enters the quota management system. We agree they should receive 20 percent of any species that go into the quota management system. But it was never the intention that a Labour Government in the future could shift the quota management system to include the territorial waters of other countries or that it would shift the quota management system to include species in the high seas. In that case Maori would be on the tail end of that and receive 20 percent of the fish caught in the seas around Fiji China India South America and Madagascar. That is one major reason why we oppose this bill. 
A number of fishing companies have come to us and said they are simply going to fish under another country’s flag—in other words income generation through catching highly migratory species in the waters of other countries and the benefits will go to other countries not return to New Zealand. We are very comfortable about voting against those aspects of this bill in relation to highly migratory species. 
The second reason we oppose this bill is the absurdity of putting mussel spat collected on Ninety Mile Beach into the quota management system. We know the Ministry of Fisheries and certainly the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research have no idea where the mussel spat comes from or where it goes to. All they know is that it moves around the oceans and washes up on Ninety Mile Beach in great volumes. Most of what is not collected lays there and dies in the sun. The amounts that are collected are distributed to the marine farming industry throughout New Zealand as seed stock. Clearly the mussel farming industry is able to build a significant business for this country with that seed stock. Yet this Government wants to put that mussel spat which would die anyway into the quota management system; thereby restricting the catch ratcheting up the price providing a monopoly supplier to the marine farming industry and in that way again holding back the aquaculture industry in relation to mussel farming. That is the absurdity of putting mussel spat into the quota management system and certainly National opposes that move. 
The third reason we oppose this bill is our concern about the schedules and I refer members to new schedule 4C in particular. New schedule 4C lists the fish species that will go into the quota management system in the near future based on catch history records presumably those between 1990 and 1992. The expectation of commercial fishers is that all fish species will go into the quota management system based on catch history between 90 and 92 years. Yet the Labour Government has decided that it will restrict what species will go in and what species will not. Those species listed in new schedule 4C will come under the quota management system with that expectation but species left out will not. Many many species have been left out of that schedule. The Seafood Industry Council the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission and a large number of submitters across the country told the ministry what species should be included in that schedule but they were completely ignored. I do not know how that Minister can ride roughshod over an expectation of property right in the way that he has. 
The final reason we oppose the bill relates to kahawai. There was the opportunity through the amendment put forward by United Future to not introduce kahawai into the quota management system on 1 October this year as is currently gazetted. National wants kahawai to go into the quota management system because that is the best system to manage kahawai but we do not agree that it should be under the total allowable catch and total allowable commercial catch conditions that the Minister has specified. Now we see that in area 1 which ranges right through the Bay of Plenty Coromandel and Northland the commercial catches can be almost as high as recreational catches. In area 2 the other main area that goes around Hawke’s Bay down to Wellington commercial fishers can catch more kahawai than recreational fishers. That is absolutely wrong. We are quite concerned and disappointed that United Future’s amendment which we supported did not go through. 
For those four reasons we unreservedly oppose this bill. They are four substantial concerns and we certainly do not commend this bill to the House. 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister of Youth Affairs) 
: 
 The member from I think Whangarei who has just resumed his seat actually had five issues not four. I know that it is tough for members in the National caucus to count particularly when they taking a vote on who will be the boss. 
I shall comment on two particular issues before commending the bill to the House. The first concerns jurisdictional issues in terms of the right under the world’s growing oceans policy to take wild species—for want of a better term. Kiwis can conduct themselves as all other nations do in the international domain of international fisheries. That is what we do and what everyone else does. The beauty of our quota management system is that it is world-leading edge. It is an unfinished manual that is continuing to be written and this bill continues to conduct a wonderful process that everyone acknowledges is world leading. 
The opportunity Kiwis have to fish in the international domain is beyond repute and beyond reproach. That is why Mr Heatley would not have had a submission from the Chinese the Taiwanese or the Fijians. He will have to get his simple limited mind around the opportunities that we have. He should not come to this House and bleat on like that. [ 
Interruption 
] The chief whip over there groans like a little bloke all the time when one tries to voice very valid concerns about speeches made by members on the opposite side of the House. The member should grow a bit of a backbone. 
My final point is about the 20 percent. In 1992 when Douglas Montrose Graham and Jim Bolger constructed the settlement agreement—also known as the Sealord’s deal—20 percent of the quota management system was put across to Maori. The reality is that a National Government put that in place in 1992. Now the National Party tries to recant tries to resile from what it put in place. End of story—National put it in place. It is constitutional it is entwined within it and that is the way it will stay. The reality for those members who are really upset about it is so sad too bad! 
I commend the work of the Minister of Fisheries for bringing this legislation to its conclusion. I commend the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) to the House. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First is unequivocally opposed to the passage of the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3). Unless other parties come to their senses and see the bill’s serious and dramatic flaws New Zealand and New Zealanders will again be presented with poorly conceived legislation that will have damaging implications for recreational and commercial fishers alike and will have a detrimental impact on our society and our way of life. At some time very soon in the future this House will be debating new legislation that will be required to address the inequalities that are being established here today. No doubt they will be described as unintended consequences. 
It is intended that the expansion of the quota management system will lead to Maori receiving an allocation of 20 percent of highly migratory species. How can businesses conduct their affairs internationally in an environment of such uncertainty when they are from New Zealand? Why would any commercial enterprise invest in the development of a fishery if subsequent legislation is likely to alter the conditions of that fishery? The Crown’s obligation to allocate 20 percent of any fish species that is being included in the quota management system arises from the 12-year-old deed of settlement of 23 September 1992 signed by the previous National Government. It is an obligation that contemplated new species but not new areas and I emphasise that. It contemplated new species but not new areas. 
Through the whole debate the Minister of Fisheries has claimed that he had legal opinions. He said he had three of them. Frankly he had one opinion twice from the same person in Crown Law. He would not and still has not produced the third legal opinion. Frankly on examination of that legal opinion I do not believe it is worth the academic paper it is written on. Clause 1.3 of the deed makes a specific exclusion in respect of new areas. It states: “This Deed embodies the entire understanding and the whole agreement between the Crown and Maori relative to the subject matter hereof and all previous negotiations representations warranties arrangements and statements (if any) whether expressed or implied (including any collateral agreement or warranty) with reference to the subject matter hereof or the intentions of any of the parties hereto are extinguished and otherwise are hereby excluded and cancelled save the Treaty of Waitangi itself.” That is what the deed states. All fisheries management areas were limited to New Zealand fisheries waters. 
It has been argued that to extend the quota management system as proposed would advantage Maori by a side wind disadvantage the fishers who lose that 20 percent of the quota and create further uncertainty. 
Why should a company go off shore create a fishery and lose 20 percent of the quota to Maori because of an arbitrary in-house arrangement made by the Labour Government in order to try to save its Maori members? It is not based on any law or on any matter of equity and fairness. The Government has just decided to do that even though Maori through the Maori Fisheries Commission could themselves be building up that resource off shore and thereby gaining a certain percentage internationally. What is fair about that? It is not fair and it does the Maori people a grave disservice. Crown Law opinions to the contrary are based on fallacious arguments and again I challenge the Minister to make those opinions available in their entirety. The least that he can do is to provide some transparency in this exercise. 
The non-Government parties must act as Opposition parties and oppose this bad legislation. Unfortunately in some ways they have been seen to lose their way. What those parties seem to fail to realise is that the application of the 20 percent Maori share of the stock to the new area means that catch history ceases to be the basis for quota allocation. In other words it brings into question the very legitimacy of the quota management system. Our quota management system which has been touted as one of the most successful in the world will lose its legitimacy and thus our conservation of fish stocks will be undermined. Future generations will not thank us for once again being so careless with our assets. 
 We in New Zealand First cannot stand by and watch that happen. What sort of message is the Government sending to business in this country? I will tell members what the message is. It is that businesses should not take the risk of making new investments and should not put their capital and technology into a new enterprise because if they do one-fifth will be given to somebody else who made no investment in the first place. It is a modern-day confiscation of property rights and it is anti-business. I repeat the comments I made in previous speeches regarding mussel spat—it has no place in this legislation. But its inclusion is consistent with the madness that is embodied in other clauses of the bill. 
Lastly I want to say that it is terribly unfortunate that the inexperienced and politically naive Mr Baldock put forward Supplementary Order Paper 247 and expected people to back it. In fact he told me that he had the backing of all Opposition parties except New Zealand First and he asked for our position. When I made some enquiries I found out that was not true. It was not true of the Greens or of ACT so what on earth was Mr Baldock talking about? More important putting such an inappropriate Supplementary Order Paper in a badly drafted bill—which this bill is—is not something that New Zealand First can support although we support the sentiments behind the Supplementary Order Paper. That is why we abstained. But let me make this very clear to Mr Baldock who seems not to understand this: if New Zealand First opposed all aspects of this bill and every part of it and opposed the second reading and the Committee stage how can it be said to have supported anything other than kahawai not being in the legislation or in the quota management system? Mr Baldock seems to have a problem with logic. But then again naivety is what United Future and Mr Baldock in particular are famous for. Where was this issue for example in the 2002 manifesto of United Future? It was not there at all. Did the United Future leader mention it in his discussions with Labour about the coalition and United Future’s support of the Government arrangements? In the 1½ pages of motherhood and apple pie can we find anything about this issue? No we cannot. 
Mr Baldock is just a naive silly inexperienced politician who will be gone before the 1 year of grace that he asked for in his Supplementary Order Paper is over. He will be gone from Parliament by then. Mr Baldock had the temerity to put out a press statement at 9.30 this morning that is blatantly defamatory. I emailed him just a short while ago to say that if he does not withdraw the penultimate paragraph within 24 hours I will sue him—and we will. We will not allow people to go outside this Parliament make defamatory statements and get away with it. 
Hon Member 
: Another one on the rack! 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Another one on the rack? Well we used to have an understanding here in this Parliament about what was defamatory and what was not—but not that clown. He put out a statement attacking all and sundry: the Greens ACT and New Zealand First— 
Simon Power 
: What did he say? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I cannot read it to members because it is utter drivel but he threw in a paragraph that is defamatory. I think I am getting pretty good at dealing with that so let us see what Larry Baldock’s lawyer is like and let us see what his bank account is like. Let him put his money where his mouth is. If I were the United Future leader I would say to Larry Baldock that unless he withdraws that statement I will fire him. He cannot go around doing that but the problem with United Future is that it has no leadership. How can a party leader allow members who are as naive as Mr Baldock to make such silly statements and then to slag off every other party? 
Here is the point: had Mr Baldock got kahawai in he and his colleagues were going to back the bill were they not? Oh yes they were. There is not a mutter not a syllable not a sound and not a murmur from the United Future members. They were going to back the bill if they had got kahawai in. For how long was kahawai going to be outside the quota management system? For 1 year by which time Larry Baldock will be gone from this House. He will no longer be here. I say to Mr Baldock that he should withdraw the penultimate paragraph of his press statement or I will sue him—that message is on his email right now. 
Larry Baldock 
: You sue everyone. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: And I am suing that member. He cannot go around telling a tissue of porkies and get away with it. He will not get away with telling porkies inside this House or outside it. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member knows he cannot accuse another member of telling porkies. He will withdraw that comment. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: OK. I withdraw and apologise. But the member should know that he cannot go around being a mendacious sybarite and get away with it. He cannot go on being a mendacious sybarite inside and outside Parliament and get away with it. That is why if we do not see the withdrawal of that paragraph within 24 hours we will start legal action and we will see what that member’s defence is. 
What New Zealand First said was that we did not believe that kahawai should be in the quota management system at this point in time. We made that statement—and Supplementary Order Paper 247 stated that it should be in that system but a year from now. That is what it states. So who is telling fibs to the recreational fishers? If someone shows those guys in United Future a gun they get carried away. The gun lobby will back them to get totally carried away and show just how demonstrably inexperienced they are. Thank God New Zealand First does not have any members like that! 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 I want to pick up on the theme of Mr Peters’ speech. It does seem to me that what United Future said to the ACT party was that if we supported its amendment United Future would support the Government. I ask Mr Baldock to run that by me again. If we the ACT party supported his amendment United Future would support the Government—is that not a good deal! I ask Mr Baldock whether I have “Stupid” written across my forehead. No I do not want him to answer that but I think the reaction from the members on the Opposition side of the House actually told him something about the logic behind his proposed amendment which got what it deserved. 
I do not disagree with the sentiment that was behind the amendment. Of course we want to preserve kahawai or any other fish stock for the recreational lobby but the reality is that this Labour Government has decided to ignore the recreational fishers in this country and their rights. The Government is protecting the rights of Maori—their so-called rights—with 20 percent of the allocation under the deed of settlement. It protects those rights and it protects of course the rights of commercial fishers who have a property right—and rightly so too. But what about the recreational fishers? I have asked in the House on past occasions why if the Government—and I suppose successive Governments—are genuinely concerned about the lack of fishing opportunity and the lack of quota for recreational fishers that issue is not mentioned in this bill. The Government could have bought on the open market the property right that the purse-seiners have—that 3000 tonnes. The Government could have bought that right; it could have gone to those people and said it was making an offer they could not refuse. The Government has done that on a number of other occasions. When it wants to settle a land deal or whatever else it wants to settle it can do that. On other occasions it opens the chequebook and does that but it did not do so this time. 
I want to move on to the substance of this No. 3 bill and I think I speak on this bill more in sorrow than in anger. The prime focus surely should be to get the important fishing industry out of acrimonious debate and out of the litigious situations that seem to dog it constantly and get it into a secure property right concept which the quota management system does give. I will not stand here and say that the quota management system is perfect in every way shape or form. Nor I think could anybody stand in this House and say that democracy is fantastic in every way shape and form. But the alternatives—and that is really what we are talking about—are a darn sight worse. As other members who have spoken have indicated the quota management system is by far and away the best system that we the human species have come up with. We are moving forward under that system and certainly it is a concept that has been picked up internationally. 
 When mentioning the word “internationally” I think it is fair to say that the Primary Production Committee which studied this bill at great length tossed it out of the boat figuratively speaking because it was seen to be so bad. There may be an international agreement. Hopefully maybe we could or may—those are the sorts of words that surround the language of this proposal of the Minister—have some sort of international agreement surrounding migratory species. It may be in 1 year in 5 years in 10 years or in 20 years—goodness knows! But the Minister required New Zealand fishers to control their catch effort while the process of negotiation was being carried out. That is an absolute nonsense which was pointed out and I think accepted by all members of the select committee including of course the Labour Government members. They saw that it was totally ridiculous for New Zealand fishers to restrict their catch effort while the Taiwanese and the Venezuelans—it does not matter who the fishers were—went for dear life in the South China Sea catching the fish that they wanted to. Back home we would be standing out in the cold and saying that we were wonderful because we were so tremendously concerned about sustaining the fish stocks that we were not going to try to catch any while those guys did their damnedest out there. That was an absolute nonsense argument so the select committee came to the conclusion that this bill should not proceed. That was the expectation of the committee. 
The purpose I am sure of a select committee is to determine whether a bill that is sent to it should advance. In most cases a bill does advance with some minor adjustments and with a lot of help from Opposition members as well. That is the proper process and so it should be. But when a bill comes back to the House with a recommendation from a select committee that it not proceed surely that is what should happen. Yet the Minister came up with Supplementary Order Paper 246 literally 5 minutes before the bill was due to be read and tried to change the thinking of everybody. It was as has been mentioned a very very substantial technical amendment. There were 17 pages—it was half the size of the original bill—and members of this House were expected to absorb it in 3 or 4 minutes. The reality is that Supplementary Order Paper 246 should have gone back to the select committee for further consideration. 
Hon David Carter 
: Hear hear! 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: I know that Mr David Carter the chair of the committee promoted that concept as I did. That would have been the sensible thing for a sensible Government to do. What did this Government do? It just ignored that. It is part of the arrogance that we find from this Government from time to time. Well it is not just from time to time; increasingly it is all the time. 
I have dealt with the migratory species but one of the issues that concerned me the most was what appears to be the capture of the ministry even by an organisation like the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society. On the subject of mussel spat the rationale for bringing it into the quota management system was to stop people from driving down Ninety Mile Beach in a rush once the spat was running or whatever they do. The concern was expressed that vehicles would be pouring down the beach as everybody rushed out to catch the spat and that is why the society wanted to bring it into the quota management system. That was a concern of the society and it was picked up by the Minister. Gracious me! If that does not show the naivety of the whole process and the capture of the ministry by an outside organisation then I will go he. 
This was a really bad bill. It should not have been introduced and it should not have been debated. We should be back at the select committee tidying up this Government’s mess yet again. It will come as no surprise that the ACT party will not support this bill. There were some aspects that could have been tidied up but because the bill is such a dog’s breakfast we will let that slide. We will not vote for this bill. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I rise today to voice United Future’s opposition to the third reading of the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3). This is not the position we initially wanted to take but it has been forced on us by a Parliament and a Minister who were either unwilling or unable to assess the big picture accurately and then act in the best interests of New Zealanders. After the Primary Production Committee voted to discharge the bill United Future after discussion with industry stakeholders recognised that it still had some value and we undertook to work with the Minister to bring this bill into a form that was more acceptable to us so that we would be able to support it. 
We did make several useful changes. We discussed the issue of tuna and the highly migratory species coming into the quota management system within the 200-mile zone and not on the high seas as was requested by industry. We addressed the issues of the by-catch for tuna which was out of sync with the catch history years and got agreement that that would be addressed through a preferential tender so that fishermen would be able to access the necessary by-catch they needed when they were allocated quota for their tuna. 
We dealt with schedule 4C and schedule 4D in the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper relating to some of the other species that needed to have their catch history recorded so that property rights would be withheld for those who had catch history in 1991 and 1992. We addressed the whelk and the geoduck issues. We addressed the pipi issue but cockles was not dealt with because it was retroactive and we could not see any point in dealing with that but that is something perhaps the Green Party was able to pick up on when it began to enter into negotiations with the Minister. All these agreements were agreed to. 
We then moved on to an outstanding issue that of kahawai which we had a great deal of discussion about. There was another issue within the bill around the green-lipped mussel spat. We had a great deal of discussion with industry and found that there were conflicting opinions within industry about whether this should go into the quota management system now or whether it should go in in a couple of years’ time. Finally we resolved that there was a majority acceptance that it was going to happen and that it was not an issue that should delay the other good things in the bill that needed to be passed. 
The outstanding issue concerning kahawai was about the recreational species being introduced into the quota management system at a level that makes commercial purse-seine fishing economical. All we asked was that either the level that was made available for commercial fishers was reduced now and not later or else its introduction into the quota management system be delayed until more scientific research could be undertaken and a better decision made. It was clear to us that it was impossible to revoke a  
Gazette 
 notice by the Minister once it had been gazetted without an Act of Parliament. This bill provided an opportunity for Parliament to express its will over and above the Minister’s intention through the  
Gazette 
 which would have freed the Minister from any comeback from the industry had that occurred. It seemed to us a sensible step to follow so that time would be bought in order for further discussions to take place. 
We clearly are still of the opinion as Gerry Eckhoff has expressed that the commercial sector needed to be compensated if it was going to lose out through those negotiations but it would give an opportunity for the Government to do that prior to the quota being issued and it would be much cheaper for the taxpayer because of that. Once the quota is issued I believe it would be more expensive to buy it retroactively and then settle for the benefits of the recreational fishermen. Unfortunately the Minister did not agree and craven political opportunism on the part of the Greens New Zealand First and ACT won the day. The support for my Supplementary Order Paper during the Committee stage which could have led to the outcome we sought was defeated. 
As this bill approaches the end of the long journey to its third reading I do not believe that the Ministry of Fisheries can be blamed for everything it has been accused of during the long process of this bill. People or organisations are seldom as black as they are painted. But this bill and all the controversy that has surrounded it has highlighted one clear undeniable fact. The Ministry of Fisheries does need serious attention to improve its management of our fisheries resource. It needs accountability and it needs a culture change in order to be more responsive and receptive to New Zealanders. 
It would be a huge advance for the ministry if it acknowledged that it does not know everything about our fishing stocks and that those who spend their time out on the sea day in and day out both commercially and recreationally have a very good knowledge of what is going on and should be listened to more carefully when Ministry of Fisheries officials are making decisions about people’s recreational activities or livelihoods. I have had conversations with frustrated industry participants even as recently as today who are giving up and leaving the industry or even leaving New Zealand because of the frustrations they experience with ministry officials. Recreational fishers are also incredibly frustrated because they do not want to have to fight for their rights in court as they did several years ago with snapper. Now it seems they have no alternative but to do so for kahawai. 
Recent fisheries legislation has been fraught with fall-out from at best extraordinarily poor and at worst downright negligent actions by the Ministry of Fisheries and its predecessors. We do not want to see similar tragic or messy situations emerge with regard to kahawai. For this reason we want no further part in perpetuating the flawed fisheries policies of this Government and of the Ministry of Fisheries and as a gesture of support and in an effort to stand up for the hundreds of thousands of recreational fishers throughout New Zealand United Future opposes the passage of this bill on its third reading. 
JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 I have this afternoon been given some correspondence and information from a mussel spat farmer in the north of the North Island. He wrote to Phil Heatley. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Whereabouts? 
JILL PETTIS 
: Around about Kaitaia. He wrote to Mr Phil Heatley. I will share it with members. It starts off with a Freudian slip: “Dear Pil. Further to our conversation— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Say that again—that’s no mistake. 
JILL PETTIS 
: “Pil”! He states: “Further to our conversation recently I have since read comment made by yourself relating to mussel spat during the second reading of the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3).” He quotes Mr Heatley here: “ ‘Thirdly we have no idea why the Government wants to put innocent little mussel spat which drifts around the ocean minding its own business into the quota management system in order to feed the coffers of three families on the west coast of the north of the North Island.’ You are obviously referring to myself in those ‘three families’ who incidentally not that you seem to care one whit for the truth of the matter would not be the only recipients of quota should mussel spat be entered into the quota management system. You would obviously rather tender the quota when it inevitably enters the QMS and hand the property right to big business against whom we could not financially compete. I find your arrogance and ignorance relating to mussel spat absolutely astounding.” 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I didn’t hear that last bit. 
JILL PETTIS 
: He was concerned about Mr Heatley’s arrogance and ignorance. He goes on to state: “Had I known just how narrow your blinkers were set I would not have wasted my time talking to you today. I have been an admirer of Mr Brash’s style but the trash you have been spouting lately will definitely result in a rethink of my position. Mr Brash’s judgment must be brought into question if he chooses to surround himself with people of your calibre.” 
I have to say that that is a letter from somebody who really understands the industry quite unlike Mr Heatley who is a boy on a man’s errand. What is happening with this bill is that the Government is providing leadership to protect the future of our quality natural environment and we are working in partnership with the commercial and recreational needs of the sector. Heaven help the oceans and the fish therein if Mr Heatley got anywhere near the decision-making process! But those of us who have been here a year or two know that hell would freeze over before that ever happened because he is just a mouthpiece for others in that party opposite. We know that Mr Heatley will never ever be anywhere near any decision-making process so the fish are safe for a while. I am pleased to participate in this debate. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 I will comment on the issue of mussel spat shortly except I will say that I suspect that if Ms Pettis had given us the name of the person who wrote that letter we would find that he is one of the persons about to receive a substantial property right via the allocation of mussel spat into the quota management system. That person is about to become a very very wealthy man. 
I start by acknowledging as we debate the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) that it would be hard to imagine that the new Minister David Benson-Pope could have got himself into a bigger mess if he had deliberately tried to do so. This is the first piece of legislation that the new inexperienced Minister has had the opportunity of presenting to the House. It was presented to the House and if my memory serves me right it was supported by most of the House. It went off to the Primary Production Committee where we started to examine its content in detail. It became evident very very quickly that this legislation was a huge mess. The Minister had clearly been totally captured by his officials. He had either not had the ability or had not used his own ability to question the officials’ rationale for putting this legislation before him so the select committee then had to do the sort of questioning we would have expected the Minister himself to do before presenting such legislation to the House. For the first time that I can recall in the last 5 years the Government’s legislation was lost at the select committee. The select committee voted for the legislation not to proceed further. 
What members need to appreciate is that that select committee is very diverse in its make-up. The National Party New Zealand First ACT Labour and the Greens are all represented on that committee. We found that the majority of those members voted strongly against the legislation and said that it was such a dog that it should not proceed any further. During the select committee process I felt a little sorry for the four Labour members Janet Mackey Clayton Cosgrove Harry Duynhoven and Dover Samuels. 
Shane Ardern 
: They were rolled. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: My colleague Shane Ardern says they were rolled. They sat there through the select committee process and realised that the bill was an absolute mess. What was most interesting was that they voted with very weak voices that it should proceed knowing full well that the select committee had the numbers for it not to proceed. 
It is of interest to note that to date Janet Mackey as the deputy chair of the Primary Production Committee has not taken a call. Clayton Cosgrove who normally rushes to the House to speak on legislation has not yet taken a call. Harry Duynhoven has not yet taken a call. I will guarantee that Dover Samuels does not take a call either. 
I want to refer to one other member whom we have not spoken about yet—the Green member Ian Ewen-Street. I am waiting for the Green member to take a call because in the select committee he voted for the legislation not to proceed but I understand there is a little whisper going around Parliament that this legislation will pass today with the support of the Greens. This is the party that runs around the country saying it is the party of integrity. It gets a chance to examine legislation in a select committee and votes against it. Mr Ewen-Street stated at the select committee that the bill was a dog yet he sits meekly in Parliament not prepared to take a call. In half an hour’s time when we vote on this legislation it will pass because his political party has changed its mind. How is that for gumption? He sits in a select committee does the work votes against it then realises that that would not be helping his Labour Party mates so votes for it. 
The real issue is not the embarrassing position that the Government is in or the very embarrassing position that Ian Ewen-Street is in—it is David Benson-Pope. Fancy advancing legislation that tries to extend the quota management system around the rest of the world! The Labour Party members look incredulous and say that it does not do that—but it does. This legislation proposes to put highly migratory species—and what that means in simple language is species that swim all around international waters— 
Jill Pettis 
: Fish can’t read prosecution signs. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Jill Pettis said that fish do not know whether they are swimming into international waters or territorial waters. That is exactly the point. The Labour Party should not try to put those species into the quota management system which is a very good system that was designed for New Zealand territorial waters. The arrogance of the Minister and the Labour Party in thinking that they will impose the quota management system on the rest of the world frankly defies belief. 
I will speak very briefly on three particular submissions that came before us. I will talk first about Westhaven Shellfish and Sea-Right Investments because their situations were similar. They had huge problems over permitting issues with the ministry. They went to court took the Ministry of Fisheries on and won. This legislation effectively nullifies their win in the courts and I object to that. Ian Ewen-Street also strongly objected to that throughout the select committee process but in an interjection a couple of days ago in the House he said that the Minister had given him his word that those matters would be addressed in the Supplementary Order Paper. Ian Ewen-Street should wake up. Those issues are not addressed in the Supplementary Order Paper—the Green member has been conned. 
The other issue regards the cockle fishery. Again we had a very interesting submission from Mr Brierley speaking on behalf of Westpac Mussel Distributors Ltd. Eight fishers had organised themselves and earned catch history under the 1986 legislation. National’s Minister of Fisheries through the 1990s Doug Kidd gave these fishers the opportunity that if the quota was held in their own personal name and they wanted to corporatise and form a company then they would be allowed to do so. Quite stupidly in my mind the officials of the ministry gave them a double allocation—allocation in the fishers’ own names as sole traders and in the name of the company they then formed. That has resulted in five of those fishers getting a double allocation to the detriment of the other three that have not bothered to corporatise. 
That is wrong. The select committee acknowledged that it was wrong and again Ian Ewen-Street tells me that that grievance is corrected in the Supplementary Order Paper. I say to the Green member again wake up—it has not been addressed. Those people have been dicked by the Labour Government and the Green member is about to support that. 
In the closing minutes of my speech I want to make sure that the industry finally gets a Minister with some competence. We have had Pete Hodgson as the Minister of Fisheries. He was sacked because he was absolutely incompetent. We now have David Benson-Pope to whom the industry was prepared to give a chance. His first bill has resulted in the select committee saying it should not proceed yet the Government is ramming it through with a Supplementary Order Paper. 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I rise to take just a short call. It has been a very interesting evening to observe as we head into the third reading of this Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3). The Opposition has accused the Greens of going soft and voting with the Government. I think the Greens have shown that they have minds of their own that are rather intelligent because they are working with this Government which has worked with the sector. We have actually worked with the industry—the commercial and recreational fishers of this country. It has been an interesting phenomenon to see the Opposition spokesman for fisheries completely outstripped and outspoken by David Carter on this issue. David Carter who has been having a spat with Winston Peters over scampi certainly has not helped the New Zealand First - National Party relationship. That has been immeasurably damaging. I think National needs to look at itself over this. Tonight I am pleased to support this bill. It shows that this Government yet again is providing leadership to the industry. I will be thrilled when this bill is passed tonight. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 As I said last night here in New Zealand for the first time in 150 years of this Parliament’s history we have a Minister of Fisheries who has absolutely floundered. He has come a real gutser over this bill. The Prime Minister should put him out of his misery. She was experimenting with this new Minister and the experiment has been a total failure. She should say that occasionally she gets it wrong and that this Minister must go. Because this bill from the beginning to the point we are at now has been a complete litany of failures. I will start with a few points that have been raised in the debate so far. 
Firstly the Minister states in his bill and confirms in the Supplementary Order Paper—although one would not know that because it is written in a way that ensures nobody will ever study it closely but it may be confirmed in there—that we are going to introduce mussel spat into the quota management system. Many times in this House the request has been put to the Minister to take a call and explain where the science is in the notion that a very migratory species in the form of mussel spat which drifts around the coast of New Zealand can be introduced to the quota management system. Some years there is a lot of it other years there is very little of it and there is absolutely no science whatsoever to say what a sustainable management programme for it would be. The Minister has failed so far to answer that question. He has completely failed and we know why—because he cannot. He has even had a legal opinion on it as he said to the House although we have had no evidence of that which I think backs up the fact that that is so. There is no science there is no research there is no knowledge and therefore it cannot be done in a credible way. 
Further one of the bottom lines of a Government—any Government—is to protect citizenship against rorts of property ownership or the theft of property rights. In this bill the Government is doing the reverse. It is giving to I think nine people a windfall that most of us could only ever hope for. 
Hon David Carter 
: It is like winning Lotto. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: It is like winning Lotto as my colleague says. It was interesting to note that the senior Government whip Jill Pettis read out a letter about one of my colleagues that we could not describe as being complimentary. It is the only letter she has received all year and I have to say to the member that we get hundreds of letters—thousands of letters. I would not bring down to the House and read out some of the letters I have had on her because I am sure they would be unparliamentary and ruled out of order. In kind terms some of the language that is used to describe the member for Whanganui could only be described as “colourful”. There are a few letters in my bottom drawer about that member. 
All I can say to the member—and I say it to the Minister and to Madam Speaker as well—is that no matter how good the strategy may be occasionally one must look at the results and the results of this are not good—they are not good by any measurement. So regardless of the fact that that was the first letter the member has received all year and it is not complementary to one of my colleagues I say to the senior Government whip that she should get one of her colleagues on the select committee to take a call and explain to members what they found out through the process. 
The deputy chair Janet Mackey is a very good member of Parliament. She represents provincial rural New Zealand in a Labour Government which has almost put her in danger. In fact I think it has run her out of Parliament but she represents rural New Zealanders regardless of what the socialists say. She stands up for them and I think she is a very good member but will she take a call on the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3)? 
Hon David Carter 
: Is she allowed? 
SHANE ARDERN 
: Well I would suggest she would not take a call on this bill and I can understand why. As has been said before the very good and very senior member Clayton Cosgrove who is another member of the select committee and a very outspoken member has kept his head down and has not been heard in this debate and there are very good reasons for that. I am sure he would make a very good fisheries Minister because he listened to the facts and he would change the silliness that is going on in this House. 
Of course Harry Duynhoven and Dover Samuels were probably wheeled into the select committee to make up the numbers at times. There is no way that I can comment on whether Harry Duynhoven and Dover Samuels have a handle on this bill because I simply do not know but I suspect not—I substantially suspect not. 
Further this bill introduces migratory species into the quota management system. The system has been recognised internationally as a fine sustainable management system for managing a fishery and I see a couple of Ministers on the other side of the House who would know that. They know that this is so. So introducing migratory species into that system means that our quota management system which now extends to the coast of Brazil or Fiji or Hawaiki—it depends on where the first waka came from; there has been a lot of debate about that but it does not matter—or the system extends around the world and those members know that this will severely damage the international reputation the system has. They know that; yet they are still allowing this bill to proceed. 
I now move to the honourable member Ian Ewen-Street who was on the select committee and is himself a victim of by-catch. There is no question about that. If we study what happened in the select committee process Ian Ewen-Street became a victim of by-catch; there is no doubt about that. I am not sure whether he will be introduced into the quota management system under this bill but he probably will because he is certainly an endangered species and there is no question about that. I sincerely hope that that process and the fact that he became a victim of by-catch will do something about fixing up the migratory species that moves up and down his tie in this House and will save the rest of Parliament from having to constantly be in danger from it but it has not. It has not achieved that and certainly the member Ian Ewen-Street who was a victim of by-catch voted against this bill and spoke strongly against it at length. 
When the chairman would not give him a slot to speak he would take it anyway. He would speak over the chairman to say: “I must make my point in this select committee. I want it recorded. I am very opposed to this approach.” He said that time and time again. He went through the detail he did a lot of work on it he was well informed and he was opposed—vigorously opposed. We come into the House today and we suspect that this bill may pass and we know that United Future New Zealand First and National are voting against it so who is left? 
Phil Heatley 
: ACT is voting against it. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: ACT is voting against it and those members have spoken at length against it. They will not support it. They made a very fine contribution on the select committee and they will not support it. It must have lost—but something has happened. Let us look at the 17 pages of Supplementary Order Paper and see whether we can find the deal that has “clause for the Green Party” on it but there is not a sign of it. Those members have not been bought by the loaves and fishes—I mean United Future might have been bought with a few loaves and fishes but not the Green Party; I know that—and given that they are victims of the by-catch but— 
Phil Heatley 
: Why the U-turn? 
SHANE ARDERN 
: —why the U-turn? It is the question we are all wondering about and maybe a Green member will take a call and explain it. We just do not know why it could have happened but it has happened. That is what we suspect has happened and it is what has happened and the fishing industry will not thank them for it. 
As for sustainability let us go back to the core principles of the Green Party. Sustainable management and environmental protection will not be enhanced by what they are doing—not today. Those members have gone against the basic principles that they campaign for around this country and get 2 percent of the vote from rich and poor alike on the environment and environmental issues. 
Hon David Carter 
: Don’t forget integrity—Green integrity. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: I would never use “Green” and “integrity” together in one sentence. I think that would be a highly dangerous approach. But those members campaigned with a bottom line of environmental protection and they have absolutely gone against that basic principle that the misguided 2 percent of New Zealanders around the country—and around the world now of course—who vote for them vote on. I just say to the Green Party that I do not know what deal the Government has done to buy them out on this but whatever that deal was it is misguided. 
Hon David Carter 
: I know it’s about the next ambassador to London. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: Well it could well be. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 What is required is the protection of our quality natural environments for future generations while working in partnership with the sector to reasonably address its commercial and recreational needs. That is what leadership is about that is what was required and that is what this Government has done. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) be now read a third time. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Maori Party 1. 
Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill 
Instruction to Committee 
Hon MARK BURTON (Acting Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill that it take the bill part by part. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
Electricity and Gas Industries Bill 
Instruction to Committee 
Hon MARK BURTON (Acting Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Electricity and Gas Industries Bill that it take the bill part by part. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Sitting suspended from 6.02 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
Part 1 Preliminary provisions 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 We start the Committee stage of a bill that has been a botch from day one. There is now a Supplementary Order Paper before the House that further guts a bill that has already been substantially gutted by the Local Government and Environment Committee. This bill pales into insignificance when compared with the bill that Marian Hobbs brought in in a great rush in November last year. 
In Part 1 the bill effectively reverts to taking a “do-nothing” position—with one exception which I want to cover in detail. Gone are the provisions for setting up a special panel. Now all Part 1 effectively does is require the Canterbury Regional Council through the allocation board to set up a process that is perfectly contained within the Resource Management Act. 
I challenge the Minister in the chair David Benson-Pope on this Government’s woeful record in respect of the Resource Management Act. Five years ago a National bill was before the House and the way that bill was managed was an absolute sham. The select committee did its job diligently but the bill sat on the Order Paper for over 2 years and then suddenly the Government tried to rush it through. 
It is exactly the same situation with this Supplementary Order Paper. Members of the select committee would have welcomed the referral of the Supplementary Order Paper to select committee. But no Minister Marian Hobbs said that it had to be developed and advanced in a great rush. That was in March. This bill was introduced in November last year in a great rush in a truncated process and now—10 months later—we are still debating it and trying to fix the botch-ups that Marian Hobbs proposed. 
We on the Opposition side of the Chamber have consistently argued that special legislation is not required in respect of the Resource Management Act. What is required is comprehensive reform and this Government has consistently failed at that hurdle for 5 years. 
I want to draw particular attention to the amendments in the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper. The great purpose of this bill was to have a specific allocation plan but now the Minister has decided that there will be a regional plan. Well there are regional plans in the Resource Management Act right now so why has the Government done a complete U-turn over the course of the last 10 months? 
I make the further point that the botch-up in this bill has cost the taxpayers of New Zealand $100 million. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: How much? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: That is how much Meridian Energy spent in developing Project Aqua. When Meridian Energy pulled the plug on Project Aqua it cited the botch-up over the law and the changed rules all along the way as reasons for doing it. I say to members opposite that they are responsible for $100 million of wasted public money because of their poor policy poor lawmaking and the continuous hashes that we have seen in this very important area of law. 
Looking at what is left of Part 1 I challenge Government members to put to the Committee why this bill is needed at all. The Canterbury Regional Council is to have elections in only a month’s time so why does the Minister for the Environment have to override the process under the existing Resource Management Act to appoint a board only to write a regional plan? What does the Government have against the people of Canterbury? Why will it not trust the elected people who on 9 October will take up their role as regional councillors? Why can those people not write the plan for the Waitaki River? Why do we need this special bill at all now that it has been gutted to this extent? 
There is no case for this bill except one—which is perhaps why the Government is advancing with it—the bill is a botch-up. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Associate Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I would like to take a call early to correct some of the nonsense we have just heard from the previous speaker. First of all I say to Dr Smith that it is in sorrow rather than in anger that I respond to those ridiculous comments he made. 
One of the most characteristic things about this discussion has been once again the confusion we have seen from the National Party. Indeed there has been direct contradiction between the absent Dr Brash and Dr Smith in their undeliverable promises to their constituency which they used to think was in the Mackenzie Basin. That is clearly not the case. This bill and the difficulties that led to it are the result of a statute introduced by the National Party that was flawed in this regard from the beginning. That led this Government to act as it has in terms of the Project Aqua consents and subsequently in terms of the water consents that need to be made. It is unfortunate that Environment Canterbury has not proceeded with what one would hope was its statutory responsibility but I guess one can lay that directly at the door of Dr Smith his flawed party and its flawed legislation. Clearly the National Party— 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. The Minister has the right to take a call in a debate as we know. Opposition members like a Minister to rise to his feet to take a call but generally it is to answer questions and to make points. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No— 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: No you have not heard me out. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member will be seated. That is not a point of order and the member knows it. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: The point of order is this— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Please be seated. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Will you take my point of order or not? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I have not heard a point of order. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Point of order— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Please be seated. I am ruling on the point of order. The Minister was quite within the bill he was speaking to. That was not a point of order. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: A new point of order? 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: It is a new point of order—it is the one I was not able to put just before. The Minister is required to get up and address the bill. He did not address the bill. All he did was to start going on about National Party policy and about what happened over 5 years ago. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member will be seated. That was not a point of order. The member knows it was not a point of order. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: No I don’t. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: If the member contests my ruling he will not be here much longer. The point is that the Minister was quite within his rights. He was speaking to the purpose of this bill. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I certainly was not contesting your ruling. I took exception to the fact that you told me as a member what I was thinking. When I called out “No I don’t” I was actually objecting to the chair telling me what I was thinking. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member will be seated. Nothing the member raised was a point of order. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I am not surprised that the National Party is embarrassed at the failure of its legislation to deliver what Environment Canterbury should have done. The Government is entirely supportive of this bill. The expectation is that regional councils will fulfil their statutory commitments. Nor am I embarrassed as the National Party should be and as the most medicated member of the National Party should be— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The Minister will stand withdraw and apologise for that remark. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Madam Chairperson— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I am dealing with the matter Dr Smith. The Minister will stand withdraw and apologise for that remark. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. A colleague of mine made a similar comment and was instantly removed from the House. The Minister has made a highly offensive remark. I expect you to show the Minister in the chair some firmness and to take exactly the same approach that was taken by Speaker Hunt when another member of the House did that—the member was told instantly to leave the House. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Madam Chairperson— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I have dealt with the point of order Mr McCully. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: No you have not Madam Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I have made my ruling on it. The Hon Dr Nick Smith has made his point. I have made my ruling. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: What is it? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I asked the Minister to withdraw and apologise and he has done that. I have dealt with it. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Thank you Madam Chairperson. I— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: It shows how much trouble he’s in today. He gets all personal because he can’t defend his bill. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I do not need to dwell on the unnecessary personal comments made by Dr Smith but I repeat that it does not surprise me that he is embarrassed by the failure of his legislation in 1991. What this Government is repeatedly having to do— 
Brian Connell 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I look for your guidance on this now. In the 2 years I have been in this House there has been a clear direction from the Chairperson or the Speaker that any member on his or her feet must speak to the bill. This Minister has made no attempt to do that other than some vague references. We are debating Part 1 of the bill and the Minister has not mentioned that once. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The Minister has mentioned that. If the member goes back and reads the Minister’s  
Hansard 
 he will see that he has referred to the bill. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I have ruled on that point of order. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: I am well aware of that Madam Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Do you have a new point of order? 
Hon Murray McCully 
: I have a new point of order. Am I going to be permitted to put it? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Point of order the Hon Murray McCully. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: The Minister who is on his feet has just been asked by you to withdraw and apologise having made an offensive remark in relation to one of my colleagues. I would have thought you would require that Minister to show some contrition and remorse in this matter rather than allow him to continue to compound his offence by attacking the very same member in respect of whom the apology has just been due. If it is your intention to preserve order and to preserve the confidence of the minority parties in this Chamber may I suggest that you need to inform the Minister to show some contrition and to stay away from that area in future. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member does make a fair point but I also make the point that there were interjections on both sides. I now ask the Minister to continue to speak to the bill. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I am pleased to do so. The legislation tonight in my view continues the pathway that we as a Government have had to spend a great deal of time on in this Chamber as we correct failed legislation that has come from our predecessors. We are pleased to do that. We are pleased to face up to the issues. In respect of the issues Dr Smith raised concerning the wider issues about the Resource Management Act I say that he will be grossly disappointed in the next week or two when Cabinet makes decisions about wider changes to the Resource Management Act because he will find that they make major inroads into correcting the failings that he and his failed Government left in the Act. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 When I first came to the House on behalf of New Zealand First I called for a reform of the Resource Management Act—not in the real sense of the word but in the sense that after a decade there was an obvious need before the next decade to see whether the Act had got it right. That call was rejected and we have gone through several piecemeal changes of which this bill is but one. 
The background to this bill is quite unique. As members will recall it came to the House in a very unusual form. It was poorly written and in a very short space of time it caused more anger and concern in Canterbury and particularly in the Waitaki catchment basin than any other single piece of would-be legislation. That was one opinion. The other opinion was outlined in a preliminary paper submitted by Meridian Energy which dealt with matters of water allocation as it saw them. It was the other major player and remained so until the bill collapsed in the House although it is not quite correct to say that the reformed bill that came from the Local Government and Environment Committee was necessarily the reason for the withdrawal of Meridian Energy from that very ambitious and very costly project. Some would have said that the project was flawed in the beginning in seeking so much land. A very high cost was put to it before the geotechnical work was done. I have no doubt that there are two issues. One of them is and ought to be part of this bill—namely the Order in Council of 1969. In addition there are the geotechnical issues plus there was the uncertainty that the bill once it was enacted would have brought delays to Meridian Energy which caused it to withdraw. 
I take up the point that I believe there were a variety of issues that could cause any prudent company especially a company acting on behalf of the New Zealand taxpayer to rethink its position and I have no doubt that in time to come Meridian may come back to the area again—much to the horror of some people living in Kurow and other places. But the issues have changed since then. Since the bill came to the House in its first form the Otago Regional Council which impacts in a small way on this district has prepared a water plan and right now the Canterbury Regional Council has a proposed Natural Resources Regional Plan which is a very extensive document that looks to give some immediacy to the total region in regard to water. Two chapters within that plan cover both water quality and water quantity. 
The third factor is that water is an issue. Water should be an issue in New Zealand just as it is in Australia. When the bill collapsed New Zealand First gave firm support to bringing a renewed bill back to the House. The simple reason for that was that when we saw the whole application by Meridian Energy and the wealth of material in that application it seemed very obvious that if some use was not made of the extensive work done by Meridian Energy and to a secondary degree by Environment Canterbury and the Ministry for the Environment then that value would be lost. But in the normal flow of things although a regional water plan or in this case a catchment plan for the Waitaki catchment area could be developed under the Resource Management Act that plan would not meet the real issue—the Waitaki River allocation in the bill. 
The real issue is “first come first served”. Although we have heard some people talk about that issue in the past it is still the current understanding. If we look at the history of the plans over the last decade and the jurisprudence that has resulted from those plans step by step and Environment Court by Environment Court case nothing overcomes the fact that “first come first served” was in. In this case “first come first served” for the Waitaki River was Meridian Energy. Meridian Energy was “first come first served”. It would have had absolute prior rights and that is the fact of the matter whether or not members think so. In practice that is how it works. 
Alongside that are a whole number of other issues. We know that in the last 15 years the Canterbury region has more than doubled the area under irrigation. In the strategic plan for the Canterbury region there is a discussion document that states that the region has a capacity to irrigate 1 million hectares. There is huge economic wealth out there that is dependent upon water. If that is to be realised that plan would do it. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 This bill is now totally unnecessary and the Green Party will not be voting for it. There was a case for it when it was first introduced—when a single application wanted to take 73 percent of the total flow of the Waitaki River and there was no plan against which that application could be tested. However Meridian Energy says that Project Aqua is off and it is no longer seeking to take that water. So I have to ask why Parliament would legislate for a special arrangement to make a plan for the Waitaki River which is less allocated than many South Island rivers that also do not have plans and which has far more surplus water if Project Aqua is not in the offing than many South Island rivers. 
What we need is integrated catchment planning that deals with the management of the whole river its associated aquifers and wetlands and the land that drains into it. There are very good techniques and tools available for that now that have been developed by Landcare but that is not what this bill relates to. This is a plan simply for the allocation of the water. It is a very very narrow proposal. We need regional planning for river catchments to be mandatory under the Resource Management Act rather than optional so that we do not have any more rivers like the Waitaki River completely without a plan and suddenly facing massive applications to take water. 
But that is not the issue here. Project Aqua has supposedly fallen over—or has it? I note that Meridian Energy has never withdrawn its applications. I do not place much importance on the fact that it has not sold its land; the land is making it a good return. It does not want to dump all its land on the market at the same time and depress prices. Meridian Energy is doing very well out of its land at the moment. But it has not withdrawn its applications. My guess is that when the board allocates a certain amount of water for the category “hydro” then Meridian Energy will again apply for the whole of that category “hydro” for a modified Project Aqua. 
The Minister Marian Hobbs answered a question in the House a while ago. She said that Meridian Energy had left its applications in so that it would be able to bring a submission to the board. That was nonsense. Anyone can bring a submission to the board. 
We were told this bill was extremely urgent. We were told that the Local Government and Environment Committee had to sit at all hours in order to report it back fast. We did that. Since Project Aqua fell over months and months have gone by. What has the Minister done in that time? She has changed the word “framework” to the words “regional plan”. That is not a huge job but it has taken months. 
The select committee unanimously agreed on a large number of amendments to the bill. We worked very hard we listened to a great many submissions and we took them seriously. We reported back—though I say it myself—a very much improved bill. There was unanimous agreement across all the parties at the select committee. But what has the Minister done? The Minister has issued us with a very large Supplementary Order Paper that undoes a large amount of the select committee’s work even though she agreed to that work at the time the select committee was doing it. 
This is the second time the Minister has done that to my committee. When the first Resource Management Act amendment bill was being considered in 2000 the committee heard 400 submissions. We considered it for a year and discussed amendments. All the Labour members of the committee agreed and we reported the bill back with substantial amendment. After leaving the bill in the House for 2 years the Minister then made substantial amendments to it again without any reference back to the select committee. In my view it is an abuse of parliamentary process for a Minister simply to wipe what a select committee has done in its consideration and substitute something else instead. 
The Green Party will not support this bill. There is no need for it. It may be a back-door method to get Project Aqua away after all in some reduced form. There is absolutely no reason why the Waitaki River should be singled out in this way. The other applications for water—60 or so of them have been called in—are on hold. They have been on hold for a long time. They should simply be heard and dealt with. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
: 
 I concur with the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee who has just resumed her seat. This is totally unnecessary legislation. I take offence—and I am sure other Opposition members and possibly some of the Minister’s own colleagues take offence—at the attitude of the Minister in the chair the Hon David Benson-Pope in the way he has come to the chair and had the temerity to be so arrogant when the truth is clear for everyone to see. 
This Government lead the pretence a while back—possibly a year back now—when this bill was at the top of list and had to be rushed through Parliament. At that time Government members said: “It’s got nothing to do with the Project Aqua proposal. That is totally ancillary. It is just a mere coincidence that Project Aqua happens to be out there. This is for the whole catchment and it is absolutely urgent. This is the No. 1 priority.” At the Business Committee we were told that this bill was a No. 1 priority and that this special legislation had to go through. 
That was a year ago. Is it not a coincidence that on the day that Meridian Energy announced its discontinuation of Project Aqua all of a sudden this neutral bill that had nothing to do with Project Aqua was put on the back-burner? Is that not extraordinary? Who actually believes that? Perhaps Mr Benson-Pope is the only member in this Parliament who believes that. It is possible that he is the only member who actually believes the absolute nonsense that this Government has perpetuated in respect of this bill. 
I concur with the chair of the select committee and with others who have expressed the view that there is no need for special legislation. There never was. This is nonsense legislation and the ACT party has said that from the outset. Part 1 is all about the purposes of the Act. It relates to the allocation of the waters in the Waitaki catchment. Again that point highlights the failure of Environment Canterbury. The Otago Regional Council was quite capable of fulfilling its statutory obligations in bringing down a very satisfactory water management plan principally for the lands south of the Waitaki River—for a long part of its course the Waitaki River is the boundary between Environment Canterbury and the Otago Regional Council. However for political reasons Environment Canterbury could not bring down a water management plan. It was for political reasons that it failed to do so. Mr Benson-Pope tried to blame that on the National Party. He has been in Government for 5 long weary years and has done absolutely nothing other than to bring this nonsense to the House—a bill that does not address the problem that it purports to address. 
The basic problem with this water allocation model is that it is an administrative model and by definition that becomes politicised. That is the inherent problem. That was one of the problems of the Water and Soil Conservation Act. I spent 10 years prior to first entering Parliament administering the Water and Soil Conservation Act. It was all based on those principles of “first in time first in right” and “first come first served”. I am afraid that that concept does not work any more. Water is a very precious commodity and product and to get the best allocation and use of what is increasingly an intermittent and scarce resource and also to get the best environmental outcomes we need pricing mechanisms. Just like every other scarce commodity we need to put a value on water so that the best use is made of it and we do not waste it. If we want to get the best irrigation techniques and not waste the water then we need to have a value on the commodity. If it was just an administrative allocation—“first in time first in right”—then it is a matter of “use it or lose it” and it would not matter how we used it even if we wasted it because we happened to be further up the queue in the politicised allocation model. That has failed all around the world. That is why water jurisdictions have moved away from it. 
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I took part in the first reading debate on this bill and I was as concerned then as I am now about the Government’s intentions as they pertained to Meridian Energy and in particular to Project Aqua. No amount of talk from the most despised and despicable member of the Labour Party will convince me otherwise. 
This bill’s purpose is all about trying to promote Project Aqua. I see the Minister in the chair the Hon David Benson-Pope shaking his head. If he believes that that is not the case then he believes in garden fairies. When I look at this guy I see that he probably does believe in them. I thought this guy was out of his depth in the fisheries portfolio but in this one he is absolutely hopeless. When Project Aqua fell over the Minister for the Environment must have found herself between a rock and a hard place. I do not think it is too big a bow to pull to say that she probably has acted illegally because one has to have the national interest at heart to call in consents. If there is not a national issue then what reason did she have for calling in those consents? The only reason she did what she did was so that she could fast track Project Aqua. 
I am prepared to say that members of the Local Government and Environment Committee did do some good work namely the limitations placed on the intent of ministerial discretion around the allocation of water in the Waitaki. But this bill is still ad hoc and it is a retrograde step. The National Party is strongly opposed to it. We were opposed to it at the first and second reading stages and nothing I have heard so far in this debate will change my position. Rather than fix the issues around the Resource Management Act this Government continues to play around the edges. I am not holding my breath for what Mr Benson-Pope is going to announce in a couple of weeks’ time. I can tell members right now without fear of contradiction that it will be a bit of rubbing around the edges because he does not have the conviction the intellect or the drive to fundamentally change the Resource Management Act although it is recognised as the biggest handbrake on growth. Rather than fix that issue Labour members would rather pervert the provisions of the Resource Management Act for their own narrow purposes. 
The greatest concern to me is the amount of administrative intervention and the fact that it takes New Zealand further away not closer to some leading world practice around how we should be allocating water. The best and closest example to hand is what is happening in Australia at the moment. Australia has not gone down the track of tradable water rights but it is looking and in fact it has engaged in transferable rights and I expect it will go to tradable water rights. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: They have on the Murray. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Oh I stand corrected they have already gone that far. Here was an opportunity for this Government to think strategically to think laterally and to bring to this Parliament some world-class best practice around how we would deal with this issue of water usage and allocation. 
Richard Worth 
: And did they? 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: They have not done that. What we have is a Supplementary Order Paper that actually guts further the ad hoc nature of this bill as it has come back to the House. It is an appalling mess and now that we have got down to the technicalities around this legislation I note that the Minister in the chair is not jumping to his feet. He is clean out of insults. Now that he has to deal with the content of the bill he has not got anything to say at all. This lack of strategic insight will stop investment in capital-intensive water use and that will do New Zealand’s economy a huge amount of harm. 
The member from the New Zealand First Party talked about Canterbury and its irrigation potential. But unless we have a water allocation process or a transferable tradable water right mechanism that investment will simply not take place. One has to ask the question: why would one invest if one did not have some certainty? So that is an issue that concerns me and it is an opportunity lost by this Government in its rush to get this information to the House. 
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 A great deal has happened since this bill was reported back to the House and had its second reading. It is true that a great deal of time has gone by since that time and that is regrettable because there is a need to proceed with the water allocation plan for the Waitaki Valley and the Waitaki River. That is why United Future will be supporting this bill through the remaining stages. 
Many people have said that the bill originally was about the fast tracking of Project Aqua and I am sure that many people still believe that today. But I am convinced that Meridian Energy certainly does not believe that. I think it is to the credit of the Local Government and Environment Committee members that we were resolute in how we handled this bill to make sure that it was not a fast tracking. The Government showed no intention to pressure anybody there to create an inner track for Meridian Energy to get Project Aqua through. In the end Meridian did pull the plug on a project that was ill-conceived at best and not very well investigated as it turned out. When Meridian Energy announced that the dirt it was going to use was not going to be adequate for its purposes it really left me wondering what on earth it had been doing all along in its analysis of the project. I do not believe the Resource Management Act was to blame for the collapse of Project Aqua at all. 
I still share concerns about the post - Project Aqua situation down in the Waitaki Valley. I am grateful to the honourable member David Parker for his assistance in meeting with some of the residents there and trying to resolve some of these issues that are still outstanding. But with regard to the Waitaki and the allocation of water there are really two communities down there who still seek to have this bill proceed through the House. The upper Waitaki residents have different concerns than the lower Waitaki residents. I even had discussions this afternoon with some from the Mackenzie Valley who are keen to see this bill go through because it does offer them some hope for the redress of their concerns to get water for irrigation and for environmental concerns in the Mackenzie Basin. 
I met recently with members of the community in the lower Waitaki. I have been down a couple of times since the committee finished its work and I am convinced that the majority of the residents there do want us to proceed with this bill. They are frustrated with the delay but they have confidence. 
Sandra Goudie 
: Why? 
LARRY BALDOCK 
: They see the need for a water allocation plan to be done. There are a number of very exciting projects there and they believe that if it was transferred over to the regional council to take care of it would result in even longer delays than they have experienced up until now. A lot of good work has been done in preparing for this water allocation board to be put in place which is what Part 1 of this bill is all about and it makes no common sense to throw all that out and start again and hand it all back to Environment Canterbury. So for that reason we will be continuing to support this legislation. 
I do though share the concerns that have been expressed about Meridian Energy’s mixed messages since announcing the closure of Project Aqua. The reasons it has given for not withdrawing consents have not satisfied me and I am sure they have not satisfied the community in Waitaki who have been through so much with that project hanging over their heads for a number of years. But I am convinced that the community does want to see this project proceed. There are many projects down there. There is tremendous potential for viticulture in the Waitaki Valley and the community will be keen to know whether they will have water allocated to them. There are also irrigation projects that have great merit economically for the area and it is important that some certainty is found about how much water will be available. 
There are also the concerns of those who value the river very much and there will be a minimum flow established for the environmental the intrinsic values of that river. So it makes good sense for this water allocation board to be established to be able to go through the process with the utmost speed that it can and to deliver finally some certainty to the community down there which in my opinion has been knocked around for a number of years. So we will be pleased to support the bill through the Committee stage although we will be listening to the debate as it proceeds over the particular changes that will occur now through the Supplementary Order Paper which are necessary in order to remove the aspects that were related specifically to Project Aqua. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 If ever we needed an example of where the Christians had been consumed by the lions then clearly that contribution was it. 
Hon Member 
: A classic! 
SHANE ARDERN 
: It was absolutely a classic in that regard. I tell the Minister who has just left the chair Mr Benson-Pope that before the dinner break we were discussing the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) and it was a mess a complete shambles and an embarrassment to any Government. Here we are after dinner discussing the Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill and it is a mess a complete mess and an absolute mess. The Prime Minister should take a look at who she has in her ministerial portfolios and do a reshuffle. She must do that. For the benefit of New Zealand that should happen right now—no later. She should put him out of his misery and bring this to an end. New Zealand cannot afford for that to continue. 
If ever there was a debate that caught the cliché “Know the price of water” then this debate must be that. One that follows in tandem to that is “Know the price of lack of good leadership or good democracy or good political process”. This demonstrates overwhelmingly what happens and those in New Zealand who are listening to this debate should take notice. This is what happens when we end up with hopeless Government either locally or centrally. I ask the Ministers who are in the House and the members of the Government what then “power of general competence” in the Local Government Act means when one looks at the way in which it is being applied in this debate at the moment. 
At the moment central government is saying in Part 1: “Look you down there in Canterbury are so thick that during the local government election process you will not be able to find amongst your rank and file people who will be able in their regional council to make decisions in terms of the allocation of water or any other resource for that matter in your area.” The Government is telling those people that they are so thick they cannot do it and that the Government does not trust them. The Government is saying: “We in central government—we the socialists the Labour Party minority Government propped up by the Christians—do not believe that you can do it so we will pass legislation tonight in the House with that minority support to make sure you get the message from Wellington.” I tell this Government that the people of Canterbury will be sending a message to this Government all right and it certainly will not be in support of this legislation. 
Let us look at the history. The Resource Management Act was passed in 1991. By the end of the 1990s it was decided that there was a need for some major reform. The Owen McShane report came about as a result of that and it recommended 12 substantial changes to the Resource Management Act. The report went to the select committee which was considering the report when there was an election and a change of Government and the incoming Minister Marian Hobbs put a red pen through the whole lot. All those recommendations were thrown out. They were completely rejected by the incoming Government. Tonight we are debating yet another silly amendment bill that will achieve absolutely nothing with regard to the Resource Management Act. None of those recommendations or the hundreds of other recommendations to the Government since then through the second select committee process has been taken up by way of amendments to the Resource Management Act. 
Let us look at the process that took place with Meridian Energy in terms of Project Aqua in this debate with regard to Part 1. A hundred million dollars of taxpayers’ money was invested in setting up a hydroelectricity plant in Canterbury where more energy needs to be produced. That process was stopped or thrown out and the primary cause of that according to the report that came back from that process was the overwhelming cost of having to go through the Resource Management Act process. So the Government introduced a fast-track—a Clyde-dam kind of piece of legislation—which went to a select committee. The select committee rejected a large chunk of it and made some sensible recommendations to the Government. When the bill went back to the Minister David Benson-Pope he threw the whole lot out and introduced a Supplementary Order Paper of about 9 pages to the House like he did with the fisheries amendment bill at the eleventh-and-a-half-hour when nobody had time to look at it properly. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 I find the course of this debate rather interesting—first with regard to the role of the Canterbury Regional Council. We in New Zealand First support this legislation for the very reasons that were enunciated by the member from United Future. This legislation has the support of the upper hill-country farmers. It has the support of one Stan Scorringe the Mayor of the district at the present time and a would-be National Party candidate. It has the support of a substantial number of the farming body in that district who are very concerned about the Order in Council of 1969 that we hope will be part of certain matters to be discussed in this legislation. 
Secondly with regard to the Canterbury Regional Council we should remember that this very valley was the subject of a major inter-boundary dispute between the neighbouring regional councils. But following that there was no express intention by the residents of that district for a water plan. That was stated to our committee and it is on record. I believe that statement and nobody contradicted the fact that there was no express intention to go beyond the needs of the local community—namely Waitaki—at the time Environment Canterbury was putting together its sequence for water plans. 
Thirdly the Canterbury Regional Council is working through a resource plan at the present time. However with the natural order of things if one went through that plan and through the various steps then moves to the next step—to put together a catchment plan which is what this legislation is about—the time delay would be inordinate. It would take years and years to get to that step. Therefore it is certainly an eminently sensible move to put this legislation and all the material that we had before the committee and which has been accumulated since then in both Otago and Canterbury before a board to decide upon the allocation. 
Before we can come to some of the excellent concepts that have been developed around here about the value of water the first issue is what water is there what water is in the river having a care for the river and whether those matters will form the subject of a regional plan that is now in place of the framework. I can go through all the issues that are involved such as the regulated minimum flows and the flows of levels from which abstractions can or cannot take place. If all the issues that one goes through in a regional water plan—all enunciated in the Canterbury natural resources plan—form the body of the meat as it were before the board and that board comes through in a suitable period of time then the people of Canterbury will be rewarded. 
This party has made a stand in earlier debates on this matter for those who have property rights. In this case a substantial number of those are being respected. We have a regard for the farming community and the prime reason why we are giving this legislation support is because the farming community were telling us as recently as 1½ hours ago that it wants this legislation. When there are discordant voices in the Chamber saying there is no rationale for this legislation I counsel them to talk to the community there and see whether they are in tune. I say to them with absolute certainty that they are not. New Zealand First alongside United Future is pleased to advance the cause of this legislation because putting aside all the baggage of the past this legislation will advance more quickly the best wishes and best desires of the community. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I concur with what I am sure is the majority of members in this Committee that this bill is absolutely not necessary. It has been absolutely gutted by the Supplementary Order Paper as was brought to the attention of members by the Hon Nick Smith. It is just extraordinary how this bill which had 55 clauses has been reduced to closer to 34 clauses as a consequence of the Supplementary Order Paper. One really has to ask why this bill is necessary. 
I note in Environment Canterbury’s submission to the Local Government and Environment Committee that it had notified its intention to do a water allocation plan and had about 33 submissions in support of that being priority work in the ensuing year. Yet the Minister cut across the bowels of everybody and introduced a bill to put forward a project that would bypass the Resource Management Act. After hearing all the speeches in the Chamber I think most members would concur on that point. 
It is just extraordinary that we have now come to the point whereby essentially Environment Canterbury could do a water allocation plan without this legislation. It intended to do so and it should be allowed to do so. All the submissions have been put through the process largely for nought. There has been a huge expense in time and a lot of anguish frustration and heartache about all the different changes and issues that arose as a consequence of this bill. It took some considerable time and effort on the part of all those who submitted and there was a huge number of submissions. That has largely all been a waste of time. I think that is an absolute tragedy. The quite extraordinary amount of money that has been spent to bring this bill to this stage and to this state is just criminal. 
I know that the Local Government and Environment Committee has spent an inordinate amount of time on this bill. Committee members have met with people who have made submissions and have looked at the area. There was commitment and dedication on the part of us all to try to get this bill straightened up from the sorry state it was in and all of that has largely been wasted. The bill in its original form noted within it 55 exclusions to the Resource Management Act and 13 inclusions. It was a significant amendment to the Resource Management Act. 
One of the predominant concerns was the exclusion of aspects of section 32 but as has been evidenced by the chair of the committee that was changed. As the bill was developed the Minister saw the efficacy of requiring the purposes of the Resource Management Act to remain intact with regard to section 32. 
As my colleagues have said Environment Canterbury should be putting forward this water allocation plan. That has been the purpose of the Resource Management Act. I see that it is trying to sidestep the Resource Management Act to put forward Project Aqua on the basis of it being in the national interest. The Minister is now looking at a better expression of the national interest in changes to the Resource Management Act although there is some scepticism about whether that will come to pass. 
I point members to the considerable effect of the Supplementary Order Paper. It absolutely guts the bill. I really do not know why we are going ahead with this bill. It is a complete waste of everybody’s time. It is just a nonsense that we are wasting our time debating it in the Committee stage. The Minister should have withdrawn this bill and left it to Environment Canterbury to go back to the people to make submissions on setting up a water allocation plan following the due course of the Resource Management Act. I am certainly glad that National opposes this bill. It has been an absolute disaster from whoa to go and I think all the exclusions and changes to the Resource Management Act are absolute evidence of that. National opposes this bill. 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister for Racing) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I am the lead Opposition member speaking to the Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill and I note that Mr Jim Peters whom I respect greatly and who has made two good contributions represents a party with significantly fewer members than National. I wish to note that I have had only one speaking slot. 
Further to that I had to put up with an extremely derogatory speech from the Minister in the chair Mr Benson-Pope to the point where he had to withdraw. I wish to make a further contribution about the very important issues in Part 1 and to respond to the points that the Minister has made. I have had no opportunity to do so. 
I point out that in the Standing Orders there is provision for up to three speeches from members. It is the norm for the presiding officer not to allow every member of the Committee those three speeches per part but it is the practice—longstanding as you will see if you read the book commemorating the 150th history of Parliament and very vigorously defended over the years—for bills in the Committee stage to be debated thoroughly. I ask you to reflect on that. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I thank the member for that. I am going to accept the closure motion in terms of the Standing Orders. There are several parts in the bill and there will be ample opportunity to speak to those parts. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 244 in the name of the Hon Marian Hobbs to Part 1 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 75 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 43 
New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 74 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 43 
New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
Part 2 Waitaki Catchment Water Allocation Board 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: This includes debate on schedule 1. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 One of the particularly ugly aspects of this Government is that if one challenges any aspect of its programme—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. We just heard the Minister of Conservation casting aspersions on the Hon Nick Smith. He called him ugly. I do not believe that that is acceptable in this Parliament. If the member did not take offence I certainly took offence on his behalf and I believe that Minister Carter should stand withdraw and apologise for making such a silly and offensive remark. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I certainly heard the member in the first instance refer to the word “ugly”. Did the member refer to that word in relation to a member personally? 
Hon Chris Carter 
: Beauty I guess is in the eye of the beholder. I withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I assume that my time will be taken from the beginning given the interruption. 
My point is that one of the particularly ugly aspects of this Government is that if they are challenged on any aspect of policy and they cannot win the intellectual argument they simply resort to personal attack. They do it with persons outside the House; they do it within the House. I do not take offence. I take it as a compliment that I am so effective in my role in Opposition that they are not prepared to have the debate on the issues but resort to those sorts of personal insults. 
I want to systematically go through each of the points the Minister has made and test whether they are true. The first thing he said was that this bill is due to the fault of the National Party and the Resource Management Act. Let us just reflect on that. 
The Resource Management Act was passed in 1991 by National and voted for by the Labour Party at the time. Labour had actually introduced the bill and passed its first reading and a good part of its second reading. Furthermore National introduced a substantive amendment bill in 1999 that significantly reformed the Resource Management Act. When Labour came to office it threw that bill out. Labour passed another bill just 12 months ago and at the conclusion of that bill passed in May of 2003 it said the Resource Management Act was all fixed and there would be no further problems. 
Then lo and behold Marian Hobbs was sacked and David Benson-Pope came into the job. He says he will fix all the problems in the Resource Management Act with a bill that he will be taking to Cabinet next week. I say to the Minister that that is a strange sort of record. How can there possibly be any credibility in his claim that it is National’s fault? It does not stand up to scrutiny. 
Then we have the claim that this bill when the Minister introduced it had nothing to do with Project Aqua. 
Hon David Benson-Pope 
: That’s right. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The Minister in the chair says that that is right. Yet the Minister only 10 minutes ago when addressing the bill said it had to be radically changed because Project Aqua had been withdrawn. Are those statements consistent? 
Hon David Benson-Pope 
: Rubbish! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The Minister did. In speaking on Part 1 he said the reason we have this Supplementary Order Paper is that Project Aqua has been withdrawn. How can the Minister say in one breath that this bill has nothing to do with Project Aqua and in the next breath say that we have to have an Supplementary Order Paper because Project Aqua has been withdrawn? That again makes no sense. 
Then the Minister said the reason we need this bill is that we need a plan for the Waitaki River and it is the only way it can be achieved. Again the Minister is very solidly mistaken. All the Government would need to do and we know from the estimates that the Government has put up $3.5 million for the development of this plan is to tell the Canterbury Regional Council that it will put up the money on the proviso that the council delivers a plan under the existing Act. The bill would not be required at all. 
In the substantive question members on this side of the Chamber ask why the people of Canterbury are going to vote on 9 October for a new regional council when already this bill will say that the council cannot do the job. Already this Government has decided it has no confidence in the Canterbury Regional Council to do its job and write a plan. The further point is why a plan for the Waitaki River? Why not the Rangitata River the Rakaia River the Ashley River or the Ashburton River? Why is it this particular river? The Government cannot pass special legislation for one particular river without giving this Parliament very concrete reasons as to why it is doing so. 
If there is a flaw in the Resource Management Act and the Minister believes that all rivers should have a management plan—and there might be some substance in that argument which was eloquently put by Jeanette Fitzsimons—let us have a bill that requires all rivers up to a particular size to have a management plan within a particular period. That might make some sense. But why just this river and just this region? 
We cannot have the Minister of Local Government in the Chamber talking about the powers of general competence and who says that we trust local government and then have a bill that takes the powers away and gives them to a group of people who will be appointed under Part 2. I say to the Minister that it makes no sense. He has been caught out time and time again misleading the intent of this bill and the reasons for it. I challenge him to take a call and answer some of those fundamental questions that this Parliament needs an answer to if this legislation has any merit. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 I thought the Rakaia River and recently the Rangitata River were subject to river conservation orders. The issues raised by the Hon Dr Nick Smith— 
Brian Connell 
: You think that’s a management plan do you? 
JIM PETERS 
: No they are not. What they do is to limit the allocation of water that can be taken by setting minimum flow regimes. That would be part of the work done by the council— 
Brian Connell 
: Very arbitrary line. 
JIM PETERS 
: It may be an arbitrary line but I understand that it cost the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society and the Fish and Game Council a quarter of a million dollars to get there. So it certainly was a very costly arbitrary line. But the issue is that the river conservation order process will not be needed for this river because the board that will be set up will have the ability under Supplementary Order Paper 244 in the name of the Hon Marian Hobbs to develop and approve a water plan that will overcome the issues that there may be with regard to the Rakaia River the Rangitata River or any other river in the Canterbury region. That board will go through what would have been done by the regional council if there had been a water plan. I do not see the local body elections on 9 October as being of particularly great interest. As I said earlier just to go through the steps that the Canterbury Regional Council is going through apart from the work that this bill will hasten would take an inordinately long time. Instead when the board is selected it will be able to go through those steps. 
I will just quickly run over the issues that traditionally make up a regional plan: the minimum flows and the takes or extractions that can take place the restrictions on the rates of use of water other than that which is required essentially by farmers and for human takes the blocks of water that can be shared above or below the regulated minimum flows and restrictions on damming. All the issues that normally form part of a regional plan will be the work of the board. New Zealand First supports that essential core function which the board will pick up and do in an orderly manner. Previously I said that we had talked to farmers and to high-country people and we have done so. The work of the board will take care of the other issues that are very very important with regard to people who feel that the Waitaki River is theirs—the recreational users and the down-valley users of water. They will have their concerns and their issues resolved in the orderly and a transparent process that is a regional water plan. The bill hastens that process. 
Again New Zealand First stands to say that we support this provision because it will bring a quick benefit to the community. We could go back in history and look at what the regional council did not do or was not supposed to have done—the strategic things that were mentioned by two previous members. But for my part I believe that Environment Canterbury has done a sound job in recent years and I believe it is still doing a sound job. 
Last of all we understand that this bill would not be before the House in this form unless there had been consultation with Environment Canterbury about the core issues. I expect that Ministry for the Environment and Environment Canterbury staff have met on several occasions and have come to the point where if this bill is passed and is passed speedily they will be able to make progress. Probably they have already worked on some of the core components of a regional water plan. 
New Zealand First supports Part 2 and hopes that the bill will hasten the benefit that the board will bring more quickly and more transparently to the wider community and not just to the people of the Waitaki Valley. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 Supplementary Order Paper 244 in the name of the Hon Marian Hobbs contains one sensible amendment to Part 2. Having said that this legislation comprises a comprehensively bad Supplementary Order Paper and a comprehensively unnecessary bill I do give credit for the fact that it contains one sensible amendment. The bill takes away the silly requirement for the board to apply for an extension of time if it cannot do the job in 9 months. It was absolutely clear all the way through the Local Government and Environment Committee hearings that the board could not do the job in that length of time. All the submissions we had stated that the job was too big for that and the bill now gives the board 12 months to do its job without wasting its time by going through special applications and special  
Gazette 
 notices. So that I guess is an improvement. 
However new clause 10A on that Supplementary Order Paper is not in any way as benign as that amendment. The select committee was quite appalled at the extent to which the bill as introduced created the board to act as a sort of puppet for the Minister and the ministry which clearly knew the outcome they wanted. It gave the Minister all kinds of powers to direct the board and it gave the ministry the power to give the board all the information on which it had to base its decision. The select committee got rid of both those provisions. What clause 10A does is to reinsert with exactly the same wording as before the old clause 10(1) which stated: “The Minister may … (a) arrange for work to be done for the Board: (b) supply any information to the Board.”—as though the board was not capable of doing that for itself. So the Minister—and for that we should read “the Ministry for the Environment”—will do that for the board and in doing so will insert itself back into control of the process. What has not been reinserted however is clause 10(2) which had stated that any such work and any information supplied to the board must be made available for public inspection. That bit has not gone back in. It seems that one will have to use clause 13 “Official Information Act 1982 amended” in order to find out just what information the Ministry for the Environment has given the board and what work the ministry has arranged to have done for the board. 
I have been wondering just how the Government was going to get a majority for those arrangements and I was quite astonished to hear a few minutes ago that United Future supports this legislation. Larry Baldock was a member of the committee yet he will now vote to have a lot of the work of the committee removed from the bill. I wonder why he is doing that because he seemed to support that work at the time. United Future also says that it supports the outdoor recreation people. The trout and salmon fishers do not want all that water to be allocated for hydro and irrigation purposes. The people who want to take water out of the river will thank United Future for its support of that but the fishers—whom United Future says it supports—want the water to be left in the river and they will remember that. The fishers told the select committee that the river needs to keep the water that it has now. We cannot simply reduce it to a minimum flow—a bit of a trickle—and allocate a whole lot of it to other economic purposes and still have a good trout and salmon fishery. So I am surprised that the member supports a bill to allocate water rather than a bill to plan for the best management of the catchment. 
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
: 
 There is a need for a regional water plan for the Waitaki River. Most of my constituents agree that that is still necessary notwithstanding Meridian Energy’s decision not to proceed with Project Aqua. There was a suspicion when this bill was introduced that it was a “think big” equivalent that would push through Project Aqua and push it through against a proper consideration of the proposal under the Resource Management Act. Those suspicions run deep in my electorate because the Clyde Dam on the Clutha River was pushed through under empowering legislation by the then National Government under Mr Muldoon. But those suspicions were dispelled in my electorate after the good work of the Local Government and Environment Committee removed all the contentious clauses in the bill before it was reported back to the House. 
Indeed on the bill’s second reading it was supported by the Greens New Zealand First and United Future in addition to Labour. Those parties all agreed that it was not think bigging Project Aqua. 
Brian Connell 
: He was supporting Project Aqua. 
DAVID PARKER 
: No I did not support or oppose Project Aqua I say to Mr Connell. The member is again misinformed. [ 
Interruption 
] No I agree that Resource Management Act - type principles are the appropriate mechanisms to use in order to deal with issues like that unlike that member who would use the power of Parliament to prevail over proper process and the interests of the local community. I find it difficult to accept the Greens’ decision not to support the bill any longer because it seems to me that if from a principled position one accepts that there is a need for a water allocation framework that principle remains good either with Project Aqua or in its absence. None the less there were others who supported the need for a water allocation framework. Indeed during the height of the controversy Dr Brash made a visit to Oamaru. He held a press conference and when he was asked for his opinion he said he thought there was a need for a water allocation framework. I agree with that. He was actually right on that occasion but he has not been supported in that opinion by his colleague Dr Nick Smith. 
I also think that the simplification of the bill by the removal of some of the particular considerations listed in the bill when it was introduced and their replacement now by general Resource Management Act principles is appropriate. My reading of that list of criteria was that they really restated the Resource Management Act anyway. I think there was a danger that they would have added unnecessary complexity and that the Minister is wise to remove that risk by making it clear that the existing Resource Management Act principles apply. I am quite confident that those existing principles are adequate to deal with the issues that need to be considered here. 
Shane Ardern 
: No evidence! 
DAVID PARKER 
: There is no evidence of that? You would prefer different principles? 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Point of order Mr Chairman! 
DAVID PARKER 
: I withdraw and apologise. I did not mean to bring the Chair into the debate. 
The TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (John Carter) 
: I say to Mr Shirley that that is very kind. I was aware of it; I was going to let it go. 
DAVID PARKER 
: The National Party would introduce different considerations if it were in charge of this legislation. As in the case of the Clyde Dam it would use the power of Parliament to overrule proper principles. 
I am happy to support this bill. I know that the majority of my constituents think that it is wise legislation and I am pleased that it is supported by both New Zealand First and United Future. I am also pleased that Environment Canterbury acknowledges that it is a wise thing to do. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Chairman and I firstly congratulate you on your elevation to the Chair. May I say that it would be splendid if you were elevated to the Chair behind it at some time in the future too. 
I am very pleased that the member for Otago took that call because I appreciate the sensitive position he is in. But hearing him come out with the statement that he neither supports nor opposes Project Aqua—neither confirms nor denies—I would advise him to talk to some of the union officials. There are plenty on his side. There is the old union song: “Which side are you on boy? Which side are you on?”. That member needs to determine which side he is on because his electorate will not thank him if he continues to sit on the fence on a matter that is so critical to it. All one does when one sits on the fence in that manner is upset everyone. 
Part 2 is the guts of the Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill. When one analyses the bill and reduces it to its basic essential elements all it does is set up a committee. The whole essence of this furore and fuss is setting up a big elaborate committee. That committee has the job of allocating water. We have had a regional council that has been entrusted with that responsibility since the regional councils were established way back in 1989. They did not do it for political reasons so what makes anyone think this committee will have any more success given that it will face the same problems? 
The member for Otago said that Environment Canterbury is delighted to have the body there. Of course it is because it has abrogated its responsibility for nigh on 15 years and now the Government has stepped in and has fast-tracked special legislation. Make no mistake about it it was all about fast-tracked special legislation for Project Aqua. 
 We have had amazing utterances from the Minister for the Environment Marian Hobbs. I heard Nick Smith say in this debate that she had been sacked. I have not caught up with that news. I know that she is often missing in action but I had not realised that she had been sacked as Minister for the Environment. I had not heard anything out of her. The last comment she made was that the Resource Management Act was “beautifully worded and beautifully crafted”. At that point Labour had Mr Benson-Pope do a review of the Act to see just how beautifully worded and crafted it was. 
But be that as it may this bill is a nonsense and it is unnecessary. If one wants to persist with an administrative allocation of water there is already an existing structure that has had that responsibility for nigh on 15 years. Prior to that there was the Waitaki Catchment Commission that had that same job. It has done catchment allocation plans in the past. I have looked at them they are still in existence and they will not be much different from what this new committee established by this bill may at some point get around to doing. 
I will get back to the subject of the Minister for the Environment. The Government claimed that it was not rushing this bill through but the select committee members will remember that when we were hearing submissions down in Kurow we got a copy of the Ministry for the Environment’s newsletter. In the newsletter the Minister for the Environment was calling for nominations to this allocation board prior to this legislation even being passed. That was over a year ago. I wonder what happened to those nominations. I wonder how many she received. She said that she was not trying to rush the bill through; she did not even have the legislation passed and she was calling for nominations for this allocation board. That is clearly a nonsense. 
Another aspect of this bill was made clear in this debate. It was again about Part 2 with regard to clause 6(2). The initial bill stated that the board must complete its function within 9 months. That was 9 months ago. 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I was delighted to see the mystery member for Otago take a call. 
Opposition Member 
: Who is it? 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: I do not know what his name is. I said he was a mystery member. But I can say why he has only 41 more flights left to Wellington because a member who stands in the Chamber and says that he does not stand for anything is not coming back to this place after the next election. If one does not stand for anything one stands for nothing. It is contagious in the Labour Party—they will not vote on anything. No wonder they call him the “Parker Pimpernel” in Otago! 
I also have to take issue with Jim Peters. There are a couple of issues that he has raised. He is well intentioned but I think he is being seduced by a small minority of people. He would have this Parliament believe that he is the only member who has gone to the Waitaki Valley and spoken to the local residents. He is talking to people in the upper Waitaki Valley who are a tiny representation of the people who live along the length and breadth of that great river. Further down the river are a huge number of people who do not want this. They certainly did not want Project Aqua—[ 
Interruption 
] Jim Peters is calling out about Stan Scorringe. The Stan Scorringe issue is simply about the Order in Council. If that were brought forward we might very well reconsider our opposition to this bill. But let us be clear—this bill is not about that. This bill is a fast-track mechanism for Project Aqua. 
The agenda is a moving feast. As Project Aqua has fallen over the Government has started to change its position. Its latest position is that this is a water allocation process. Mr Peters has fallen for that hook line and sinker. He talks about the farmers of Canterbury. He is not talking about the farmers of Canterbury per se he is talking about a tiny number in South Canterbury and North Otago. He should at least learn the geography before standing up and representing himself as an expert in my territory because he is not. 
He talks about using the Rakaia River and the Rangitata River to manage irrigation and water allocation programmes down there. I can tell that member that he is wrong and that is as much as I will say about that. The Opuha Dam is a good example of how people working together in a local community can put water allocation programmes in place without having central government bureaucracy hitting them over the head with a cricket bat. It simply is not necessary. 
This bill was Project Aqua in disguise. Geoffrey Palmer when he introduced the Resource Management Act—and let us be clear about who introduced it: it was Geoffrey Palmer and the Labour Government—said that he did not want the Resource Management Act to be the National Development Act in disguise. But the Government forgot that. It picked up the Resource Management Act and used it to fast track Project Aqua. 
I would like the Minister in the chair to stand up and give me an unequivocal undertaking that existing property rights will be protected. Maybe the member from New Zealand First will be interested in hearing what the Minister has to say about that. The commentary in the bill states that existing property rights or consents will be maintained but I can see nowhere in Part 2 or any other part for that matter that says that that will be guaranteed. It all sounds very laudable but there is no explicit recognition or protection of existing rights. 
The Minister has been asked to get on his feet and give an unequivocal guarantee that those existing property rights will be protected. I bet he will not. If he does not confusion will reign and it will result in lengthy delays and more costs as existing consent holders have to defend their consents against those new applicants. This bill does not put that stake in the ground. As it exists now the rights of electricity generators farmers and other users are being undermined and uncertainty will reign. It is likely this bill will promote not reduce this type of confusion. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 Uncertainty already reigns. In June 2003 farmers applied for water rights for 0.002 cubic metres of water which is as someone has said merely a piddle in a bucket. It is absolutely infinitesimal. The Minister used her call-in powers on those applications in October 2003—the introduction of this bill was in November 2003—so those people have had their water rights put on hold as a consequence of this bill which they were promised would be passed within 6 months. That did not happen. It dragged on until September 2004 and it still has not happened. There is no plan being formed as yet and it will take some time to form one. Those farmers who have applied for water rights are still in limbo so there is definitely no certainty around that. 
The member who recently spoke about Part 2 and said that this whole bill is just about the appointment of a board is absolutely right. That is just about all that this bill does. It sets a few definitions but it is largely about establishing this board for the regional water allocation plan. The Minister has her fingers in this pie well and truly because it is the Minister who will appoint the board. As we have already heard she has already called for applications for this board. I wonder how many she got how many people she has made promises to and whether that is the reason that she has to go ahead with this bill and the establishment of a board. Because as we have quite clearly heard the only reason for this bill is to establish a board. 
With the establishment of this board the Minister must have regard for the skills of the board. In looking at that it is about members of the board having an understanding of water allocation river ecology the Waitaki catchment and tikanga Maori. We have to ask ourselves what tikanga Maori has to do with water allocation and that is one of the bones of contention I guess with the Resource Management Act because there is a definition of tikanga Maori that is pretty broad and could mean just about anything and everything and it is my understanding that it pertains to the particular tikanga for that tribal group or individual. The Minister again with her finger in the pie appoints the chair of the board although one would wonder why it is not left to the board to appoint its own chair. The Minister also appoints the deputy chair of the board so one can see quite clearly that the Minister has quite a great deal of influence—far too much influence—on the board’s composition and on who its chair and deputy chair will be and that is quite unacceptable. 
That does not happen in any other situation where there is a regional water allocation plan going ahead. Those bodies do not have that ministerial influence—or interference it could more appropriately be called. A member may be removed by the Minister at any time as well so what sort of independence does this board have with so much interference by the Minister? It really is extraordinary. If it were not for this so-called board there would not be a need for this bill. There has been no justifiable explanation from the Minister as to why this bill is necessary and we certainly will not get it from the Minister will we? I have not heard anything to date that would even purport to being a justifiable cause. 
The other thing about this board is that when it establishes its regional water allocation plan and accepts submissions to that plan those submissions cannot be appealed to the Environment Court. No submitter can appeal to the Environment Court because this process still has some exceptions to it from the normal Resource Management Act process. I put it to members that those exceptions are unacceptable and that if it were not for this board with all this ministerial interference or for those exceptions to normal Resource Management Act processes there would be a level playing field for all of those participating. 
Hon TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Minister of State) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 A number of colleagues have— 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I would ask that my colleague Gerry Eckhoff gets a call in this debate. He is the only South Island high-country farmer in this Parliament. He is the southern man from Otago and I believe that he has been calling consistently. I would like an assurance that you will not take the closure motion before he has an opportunity to make his contribution. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I have called the Hon Dr Nick Smith. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: A number of members have asked in this Chamber why on earth the Government is proceeding with this legislation and there is one very devious reason for that. It is that the Minister for the Environment broke the law and now she has to patch it up. Let me set out for this Parliament the way that the Minister did that. There is a very specific provision in the Resource Management Act that allows the Minister to call in resource consents that are of national significance and there would not be a member in this Committee who would contend that Project Aqua was not a matter of national importance. But the Minister did not just call in Project Aqua. The schedule of this bill lists consents for as little as 1 litre of water per second. One farmer has had a water right for a couple of stock tanks for 126 years and his resource consent was called in. Is there a lawyer in the Committee or any member of the Committee who believes that it is a matter of national importance for a farmer in Kawerau to draw off sufficient water to supply a couple of stock tanks? 
At the Local Government and Environment Committee we heard from Queen’s Counsel who were very clear that the Minister for the Environment Marian Hobbs had broken the law. I am sure that the Minister in the chair David Benson-Pope has had the same advice from his officials and that the real reason that the Government is proceeding with this bill has nothing to do with protecting the water of the Waitaki River and has everything to do with patching up Marian Hobbs’ botch-up. The only way that the Government can patch up her illegal act in October 2003 is to pass this legislation. If members had done what they should have done with this bill and chucked it in the bin the Minister for the Environment would be wide open—absolutely wide open—to be taken to the cleaners in the courts of New Zealand. This Parliament is being asked to retrospectively fix up the Minister for the Environment’s illegal acts. That is right—we are being asked to patch up her illegal breaking of the law and that is not good enough. 
I do not know why the members from United Future and New Zealand First are prepared to patch things up for an incompetent Minister who has broken the law. I challenge any member of the Government to get to his or her feet and describe how the Minister for the Environment could possibly have acted within the law by calling in such small resource consents. That was never what was intended in terms of matters of national significance. I challenge David Benson-Pope to get to his feet and tell members what his officials have said. We know what they said to the select committee. They said that the law was doubtful and that the bill would help to clarify it. What does that mean? It means that the Minister broke the law and Parliament is being asked to fix that. Well I say that it is not good enough for Ministers to break the law. 
I want to make another point to the Minister in the chair David Benson-Pope. He has said that Labour wants to fix delays in terms of the Resource Management Act. I ask him how this bill will help to do that. This is a resource management amendment bill so how will it help with the delays? Will this legislation solve the delays under the Resource Management Act for the poor old cow-cocky? [ 
Interruption 
] The Minister should get on his feet and speak rather than do that silly business of pointing in the Chamber. I ask him how this bill will help to deal with delays under the Resource Management Act. I see that the Minister does not want to answer that. What this bill had done for the poor old cow-cocky in Otago who applies for a small amount of water is that it has made him or her wait for a year while the Government puts this bill through the House. Part 2 will then take another year for the development of a water plan. Then the consents will have to be heard—and that will be at least another 6 months or probably 12 months—and it will take another year after that if they go to the Environment Court. Does any member of this Parliament believe this bill will reduce delays? 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour—Napier) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 I certainly appreciate being given the call. In my opening remarks I say to Opposition members that they are being very unfair to the current member for Otago. Gavin Herlihy is a first-rate member. He has worked tirelessly for that area and I think they are being grossly unfair to criticise Gavin Herlihy’s work. [ 
Interruption 
] What? I am sorry do members mean he is not the current member? Oh dear! Well I see Gavin’s Herlihy’s name a lot more in the newspaper than I see David Parker’s name so I just assumed that Gavin Herlihy was still the member for Otago. Gracious me I must be wrong about that. 
When I look at Part 2 it just sends a shudder through me entirely. I note that the Minister is to set up a water allocation board. I and everybody else in this Chamber saw the appointment of a ministerial reference group. The group was supposedly fair and representative and it has come out with a recommendation in its report that has again sent shock waves throughout the country. The group was appointed according to the Minister from men and women of outstanding quality. I am sure that individually some of them probably were but their report is a shocker. I have not the slightest doubt that the water allocation board will be made up of sycophantic political appointees appointed by the Minister. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Labour hacks. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: They will be Labour hacks who have had some association with water—because they once drank some with their whiskey or something or other. That is the most worrying aspect of this legislation. If the names of the board members were known to us all we could make a judgment call on that but quite clearly the Minister will appoint her people to the Waitaki Catchment Board in order to get the result that she and the Government want. Exactly the same thing applied with regard to the reference group; that Minister certainly got what he wanted. 
I emphasise just how hugely important water is. Water in the South Island especially in the area to the east of the main divide is as important as the land itself. Without water much of our farming would not survive. Yet potentially the board could well take away from the farming community especially its ancestral traditional cultural and social connections. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: What about customary rights? 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: Well it could take away customary rights as well. Where have we heard all those things before? If those sorts of aspects apply to Maori then they must apply to the people of the land at Kurow in North Otago and in the catchment area of the Waitaki River. Water means a huge amount to the people of that area. We have just seen a real battle on that issue. As my colleague Mr Ken Shirley has pointed out we still do not know what Mr David Parker thinks. I am told that Mr David Parker is the member for Otago. Apparently he still has not made any comment on this particular issue to say whether he is in favour or agin. The people of Otago do not really know that. We constantly emphasise that point. 
Quite frankly the regional council has come out with a pretty reasonable plan for our region; the council has forgotten more than the Minister will ever know about this subject. I personally would not mind this legislation quite as much as I do if the allocation board members were to be derived from the regional council or were to be appointed by it. That would be reflective of the region. But that is not to be the case. This bill is a totally inappropriate way of handling a very very vital issue to the people of Otago: the allocation of what is known as “blue gold” to the people of our region. The issue is of massive importance. 
There is another aspect of this part that is hugely disturbing. I see that the Minister can remove a member of the board for what is called “misconduct”—whatever that may be. Does “misconduct” mean disagreeing with the board or disagreeing with the Minister? Would that be construed as misconduct? 
JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. The area of New Zealand that is now under debate is an area that I represent. I have had only one call on this part and before you take the closure motion I think it is only fair in terms of the representation of the good people of Canterbury that I have the opportunity to take one more call. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: There will be other opportunities for the member to speak. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 244 in the name of the Hon Marian Hobbs to Part 2 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 75 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 43 
New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 75 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 43 
New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to. 
Part 3 Framework for allocation of water in Waitaki catchment 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I want to bring to the Committee’s attention a particularly important amendment that National is moving in this part. The amendment relates to the vital issue for the people of the upper Waitaki catchment of the commitments that were made to them at the time of the huge hydroelectric developments that took place there in the late 1960s and the 1970s. That community has seen huge changes in its landscape and in the use of its water. Both Ministers and politicians at that time gave commitments to that community of an allocation in today’s terms of 15 cubic metres per second of water for the purpose of irrigation. 
The course of the history of what happened after that is somewhat fuzzy. During the select committee stage members of the Local Government and Environment Committee questioned extensively just how it came to be that the 1969 Order in Council that promised that water for that community disappeared out of existence. There was a very complex legal set of the Water and Soil Conservation Act being repealed of the Resource Management Act coming into effect and of the resource consent applications that were lodged at the time by the Electricity Corporation of New Zealand—subsequently overtaken by Meridian Energy. Two things were clear through that process: firstly there was no deliberate decision by Ministers by Parliament or by the community of the Waitaki to surrender the water rights that were promised to the community at the time and second nor was there any deliberate attempt to lock up every drop of water in the Waitaki catchment solely for the purpose of electricity generation. 
 Today we challenge Parliament to put some justice back into what occurred then by supporting the amendment that is in my name. All that we are asking is that when the board comes to allocate the water in the Waitaki River it takes into account—it is not absolutely bound by it—the Order in Council of 1969 and the commitments given by Ministers of the Crown at that time to the people in the upper Waitaki River area. Members on the Opposition side of the Chamber believe we should support that amendment because it is good environmental lawmaking. All sorts of communities around New Zealand have very difficult and contentious issues when there are major developments as there were in the 1960s when the huge upper Waitaki scheme was built. It is very important that people can trust the word of Ministers. It is very important that when communities come together and do a deal people know that those deals will be honoured in the long term. That is why I call on this Committee to do the honourable thing and support that amendment. 
The Government wants to play games now—I have seen that in the media with regard to Jim Sutton and David Benson-Pope. They want to have an argument about the history of what occurred in 1991. I am not saying that we were flawless then; I am not necessarily saying that what was done was right. What I do say is that there is no record of Ministers deliberately taking away those rights to water. There was no deliberate decision of this Parliament or of any Government that all the water would be set aside exclusively for electricity generation. If we have any respect for good process then I invite the Committee to back that small rural community which has been disadvantaged by the outcome that has occurred since then. I challenge the member for Aoraki Jim Sutton and the member for Otago David Parker to note what the local people think. There is a choice as to whether the water of the Waitaki River—every single drop of it—will be used for generating electricity for the rest of the people of New Zealand or whether we will allow a tiny amount 2 percent of it which is what was promised to the people back in 1969 to be used for irrigation purposes. Do we think that the promise that just 2 percent of the water of the Waitaki River would be used for irrigation purposes is something that should be taken into account as this legislation comes into effect and as the water of that great river is allocated? 
I make a very honest plea to this Committee: let us do the honourable thing. Let us do the right thing for the people of the upper Waitaki catchment and let us do something to enhance the reputation of politicians Ministers and the Crown. A lot is said about honouring the treaty but what about honouring agreements with rural high-country farmers? What about making sure that when they have an agreement it is honoured? I call on the Committee to support our amendment. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Associate Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 We have heard some extraordinary things in the Chamber in the last 12 hours or so and not the least of them has come from the previous speaker the very confused Dr Smith—the man who told  
North and South 
 that he had been “screwed” by his leader and that he was not here in Parliament “to shag spiders”. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: That’s not true. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Well I have read  
North and South  
I tell 
Dr Smith— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. This is the second time that this Minister has chosen to simply engage in derogatory personal statements that are not true and you know Madam Chairperson that if a member says something is not true he is to be taken at his word. I think that for the Minister who is meant to be a Minister of the Crown to immediately begin a debate of such crucial importance to the people of the upper Waitaki with those sorts of untruths does this Committee no credit at all. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: That reflection on Dr Smith has continued throughout the debate this evening. I say to the Minister who has brought those accusations and made those personal statements against my colleague that that is completely unparliamentary. It is unacceptable under Standing Order 116 and the statements made are untrue. I expect Madam Chairperson that you will censure the Minister and ask him to apologise for his conduct. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I think that in the interests of good debate this evening it would be appropriate if the Minister withdrew those remarks. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I am happy to withdraw and apologise and I am sorry if the member has taken offence— 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I draw your attention to Standing Order 106 and I think that in this instance it may be the best remedy. Standing Order 106(1) states: “A member who has spoken to a question may speak again to explain some material part of the member’s speech which has been misquoted misunderstood or misrepresented in the same debate.” I think in this instance that if the Hon Dr Nick Smith were to have another call pursuant to Standing Order 106 that would in part remedy the misrepresentation we have had from the Minister in the chair the Hon David Benson-Pope. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Lindsay Tisch 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. While you were deliberating Madam Chairperson the Hon Ruth Dyson has been interrupting. There is meant to be silence during points of order. The Minister was speaking at the time that the Hon Ken Shirley was making his point. You should be deliberating Madam Chairperson but we have interjections all the time. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member is quite correct. I give members a final warning about speaking during points of order. One cannot rule on points of order if there is noise going on. The point that Mr Shirley raised is not pertinent. The material was part of the Minister’s speech. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: What I really wanted to do was to read the even more extraordinary— 
Brian Connell 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. This is a new point of order. I would like you to reflect Madam Chairperson not on the point of order you have ruled on but on the use of language by Mr Benson-Pope. Unparliamentary language like “shagging spiders” surely cannot be accepted in this Chamber. You did not ask him to withdraw or apologise for the use of that language. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I have ruled on the point of order. 
Brian Connell 
: This is a different point of order; it is about the Minister’s language. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member will please be seated. I have ruled on the point of order. The point of order was about the member’s language. He has withdrawn and apologised and that is the end of the matter. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Irrespective of what may have gone before the most extraordinary statement made by Dr Smith in the last decade is recorded in the  
Otago Daily Times 
 by David Bruce the columnist responsible for Otago and Waitaki affairs. Since I had the good fortune to be elected to Parliament in 1999 my respect for the  
Otago Daily Times  
has grown. That is not meant to be a reflection on other dailies but it may be something to do with the fact of its independent ownership. On matters around the Waitaki and the whole Project Aqua debate including the debate around the water allocation issues that we are canvassing tonight David Bruce who is the columnist in Otago and Oamaru has gained amazing respect for the way that he has reported very contentious and highly contested issues. 
I would like to put into the  
Hansard 
 this evening a report from the  
Otago Daily Times  
of 24 July this year the byline to which is: “It reads like a ‘whodunnit’- David Bruce investigates who killed off water to irrigate the Mackenzie Basin.” The article is headed “Allocation never meant to go”. I ask members while I read this article to think about what they have just heard from the National Party’s chequered spokesman on this matter. The article states: “The National Party now championing the cause of Mackenzie Basin farmers passed legislation in 1993 that took away their irrigation allocation. However the party’s current environment spokesman Dr Nick Smith said the National government in the early 1990s never intended to do that. … Dr Smith was a member of the National government which made an amendment to the RMA in 1993 removing the section of the 1991 Act which had given the 1969 order in council virtual resource consent status. Doing that also removed the irrigation allocation.” 
Frankly I am not surprised and neither are Dr Smith’s former constituents in the Mackenzie that he is as embarrassed as he is about that incredible cock-up as he refers to it later on in that article. However what does surprise me is that Dr Smith and other members stand up in this Chamber and criticise the establishment of a water allocation board in this legislation. Dr Smith was quoted later in the same article as saying: “National wants a statutory board being established by the Government to allocate water in the Waitaki catchment …”. I say QED to Dr Smith. He has got it wrong again publicly. It is time he owned up came clean and got on board when the Government is trying to fix up yet another shambles that it has inherited from him and his mates. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 This issue has a long history to it and a sense of rightness about it. The position of New Zealand First from the very beginning has been that this bill is about water allocation. In passing I say that the stance taken by the member for Otago is absolutely the correct one with regard to Project Aqua. Whether Project Aqua should proceed is not the rationale for this bill; as far as we are concerned the rationale for the original bill and the bill before us in its present form is one of water allocation. 
But there is the historical issue that has just been raised by Dr Smith—that is the historical 1969 Order in Council that granted the Electricity Corporation the right to dam use divert discharge and take water from the upper Waitaki River and lakes. This order as we all know followed on the historical dam development going right back to 1928 when the first Waitaki dam was commenced. The 1969 order also provided for specified amounts of water to be granted by the Waitaki catchment authority for irrigation purposes. That comes back to the issue that has been advanced to us by relevant farmers in the district. In 1990 when the Electricity Corporation applied to the Canterbury Regional Council under the Water and Soil Conservation Act for a bundle of water rights those rights were granted. They were granted on 1 February 1991 for a term of 35 years. 
Against that historical background come the legal issues that are before us. We know that it was stated in the Environment Court on 12 December 2003: “It is very unlikely that some residents of the Waitaki catchment have legitimate expectations as to future irrigation water rights based on the 1969 Order in Council.” That decision of the Environment Court has been further before the courts in recent times. Notwithstanding that New Zealand First gives support to the suggested amendment from Dr Smith because all that the amendment does—and the farmers would ask for no more with regard to the history of this development particularly in respect of the legal matters that are yet to be decided upon in another place—is place on record an ability for their case to be heard before the board that is set up in this part. We know that the present Canterbury Natural Resources Regional Plan will not be operative until 2009 at the earliest. A water allocation plan set up as a regional plan under this bill could be in operation much much earlier than that and when it is in operation the interests of that group which is affected and still feels affected by the Order in Council would need to be looked at again. This bill provides a suitable vehicle to undertake that role—the relevant board set up under the bill. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
: 
 The ACT party will certainly support the amendment in the name of the Hon Dr Smith calling for this matter to be taken into account. Indeed my colleague Gerrard Eckhoff who does a remarkable job serving the interests of farmers throughout the country but particularly those in the South Island high country and surrounding landscape has been pressing this point in the ACT caucus and we certainly accept that situation. 
What we have is a clear promise and commitment from the Crown. In 1969 when the Crown was building those Toecap schemes in the Waitaki catchment we had a clear commitment. What better proof of a clear commitment than an Order in Council providing for that volume of water to be made available for irrigation purposes? We know that an additional metre of freeboard was put on the Toecap structure so that another metre of water would be available in that dam for irrigation. Of course that is the top metre. When one puts a metre at the top of the freeboard the surface area of the dam is that much greater. That is an immense volume of water. 
The other aspect that needs to be considered is that the irrigators’ demand for water relates to a very confined time. It is really during the maximum point of evapotranspiration—principally January and February when evapotranspiration is at its greatest. That is not the time of year when we are in a most critical situation in terms of storage levels in our hydro dams—typically May June or July. Yes one could argue that given a severe drought all storage is critical and that is partly true but water supply is so intermittent so often that Meridian Energy stores all the water then spills it all. Meridian Energy stores it through the critical period when it could be earning hundreds of millions of dollars and enhancing the farmlands of the Tekapo Basin then spills it down the spillway to sea because it does not know how intermittent supply will be or how prolonged a drought will be. That just does not seem sensible. 
But for the Government now to pretend that it does not have any obligation when an Order in Council in 1969 gave that commitment seems rather strange to the ACT party. The fact that this Government is happy to renege on it disturbs me but we have some precedents for that. Let us think about the West Coast Accord. The Labour Government signed the West Coast Accord which included the union movement local government and all the forest industry. It was an absolute commitment in perpetuity. It was going to provide for a sustainable yield of beech forest in perpetuity. How long did “in perpetuity” last? The accord was signed by Phil Goff the Minister for the Environment in September 1987. One of the first things this Labour Government did when it came to office was to tear up that accord. It just tore it up. This Government’s word is worth nothing. It is a bit like its tax policy: it said that only 5 percent will be affected but we already know that 10 percent is affected. 
Brian Connell 
: 12 percent! 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: That is right—12 percent. That figure was mentioned in question time today. We are guaranteed broken promises from this Labour Government. To get back to the bill it is a critical issue and it can be provided for. We do not believe there should be special legislation but if this board is to be set up then for goodness’ sake let us at least let the board weigh up the merits and take into account that Order in Council. As I understand it that is all that Dr Smith is asking for. It is a very reasonable request. How could one possibly vote against it? All that the amendment states is that the Order in Council should be taken into account and considered. Hopefully we will have a panel of competent experts. I am not too sure that the Labour Minister will appoint competent experts but let us hope he does—in which case how could one vote against that amendment? I call upon United Future. How could United Future not support this amendment to make that water available? 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 This is a very important issue that we are debating right now in relation to the Mackenzie Basin. The 15 cumecs of water was promised to the farmers in 1969. It is something that appealed to all of us as we sat on the Local Government and Environment Committee and heard the submissions about this issue. We unanimously agreed that everything possible ought to be done to try to resolve this issue because it is clearly something that Parliament should give its attention to. 
We have debated this issue a great deal. If it was simply an issue of legality that could be addressed by giving back rights that were lost I believe that it would have been in court by now or would be going to court and that would be the appropriate way to address it. But we know that that option is not open to the farmers as the 1969 Order in Council has been revoked. There is no way for them to proceed legally particularly because there is a High Court decision at the moment to do with water allocation in the upper Waitaki and that decision will have a bearing upon this issue. 
I am firmly convinced that the 15 cumecs of water do not pose any threat to Meridian Energy’s ability to generate hydroelectricity and any way a good percentage of it would flow back into the catchment area and be useful downstream. I have worked very hard with the Minister to investigate all the avenues by which Parliament can do the best we can to ensure that the Waitaki Catchment Water Allocation Board does take this matter into consideration. Ultimately I believe that the case rests on an environmental issue rather than on the legal issue of the 1969 Order in Council. It is obvious to anybody who visits the Mackenzie Basin that it needs water and that tonnes of dust every year are blown away as a result of the basin having been deprived of water for a considerable number of years. 
The Minister in response to our concerns has stood in this Chamber and given an assurance that she will make sure that the water allocation board does take into consideration these issues. All the historical data that is there will be put before the board all the various concerns of the Mackenzie Basin residents and the issues there will be presented and I believe that that will resolve the issue. I do not believe any water allocation board worth its salt would ignore the need for water in the upper Mackenzie Basin particularly given that it is such a small amount—15 cumecs. I would hope that the residents would get much more than that; that when finally a decision comes down from the courts about the consents in the upper Waitaki the water allocation board may allocate more water because huge productivity is possible up there if water is made available for irrigation. 
The difficulty that we face is that if we tamper with the legislation as it currently stands we may actually create more difficulties than we are trying to resolve. I am confident that the water allocation board will be provided with all the information it needs in order to make a very good decision. I will continue to work very hard on behalf of the Mackenzie Basin residents to ensure that that does occur. Unfortunately while we are sympathetic to the amendment from the Hon Dr Nick Smith our having been presented with it just minutes ago means we are not able to give it our support; it is something that would have to be taken to our caucus and I have not had the opportunity to do that. But I want to indicate to the Committee that we are very very committed to these concerns and I believe that we have already addressed them and that they will be resolved by the water allocation board when it is set up through the passing of this legislation. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 In speaking to Nick Smith’s amendment I admit to some sympathy towards what he is trying to do. I do think that the 1969 arrangements are part of the matters that the board ought to consider. I also do not think there is anything in the legislation at the moment that prevents the board from considering that issue but I was quite sympathetic to the view that we direct it to do so. However on looking at the amendment I do not think that is what it actually does. 
The amendment is added on to clause 21 which sets out what must be done in order to evaluate whether the allocation decisions that the board has already reached meet the requirements of section 32 of the principal Act. So that is the section 32 analysis and as I read the Act the bill and Supplementary Order Paper 244 in the name of the Hon Marian Hobbs the board has to consider after it has made the allocation decision whether what it has done is appropriate and it has to consider the benefits and costs of its decision. If Nick Smith’s amendment were to be added on to that then the board would have to consider the Order in Council as part of the process of evaluating whether its allocation decision which had already been made was appropriate. It seems to me that the place to consider the Order in Council is in making the allocation not in evaluating the allocation so the amendment may tend to tie the board in certain legal knots. On that basis we may be better to rely on the fact that the bill as a whole does allow those matters to be considered. Possibly the member should have considered amending new clause 14AA inserted by Supplementary Order Paper 244 which sets out what the board must do in reaching its allocation decision. We have not yet voted on that clause. 
However I do want to comment on new clause 14AA which is now all that remains in terms of describing what the board has to do in making its allocation given that clauses 17 and 18 have been entirely removed from the bill. The four matters in new clause 14AA are not prioritised at all. There is no direction to the board as to whether it should first provide for stock watering firefighting and domestic use then provide for the intrinsic values of the river itself and then allocate water between different activities which is what we have all assumed it should do. In fact there is nothing to stop the board given the way that the Minister has worded that clause from providing first for hydro and irrigation purposes and only secondly considering whether the local farmers can water their stock and fight their fires and then thirdly considering whether it has left anything at all for the river itself. 
It seems that new clause 14AA is seriously lacking in not setting any priorities for the way that those four matters are to be ranked. I think that is a serious problem. There is no help in doing that from the clauses that previously provided quite detailed directions to the board as to the matters it was to consider and that in fact turned the process into much more of a catchment management process than simply a water allocation process. But clauses 17 and 18 where the Local Government and Environment Committee put in quite a lot of work and added to what was originally presented to us have completely gone and we now have only new clause 14AA. Exactly how it will mesh with the principal Act is still really quite unclear. The board will find itself in some difficulties in trying to interpret what the Minister has given it to do in that rather ill-advised Supplementary Order Paper. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 It has been fascinating listening to the debate in the last few moments. Two members from two minor parties that are known to support the Government have spoken against the Hon Nick Smith’s amendment. Let us look at the events that led up to that point. What we have in Part 2 which was voted on recently was the setting up of a Labour quango. 
Brian Connell 
: What’s a Labour quango? 
SHANE ARDERN 
: A quango made up of former Labour members of Parliament who no longer have a job after they leave Parliament. Such people will go on a board that decides what happens with water allocation. [ 
Interruption 
] David Parker Jim Sutton and there are a few other candidates I am sure. 
Then Part 3 has screeds of regulation with clause after clause that restricts the board and tells it exactly what it can do. The Hon Nick Smith has a huge amount of institutional knowledge on the whole history of the Resource Management Act and particularly this issue. The Associate Minister for the Environment himself waved a bit of paper around; he gave a bit of the history of it that confirmed what the Hon Nick Smith had said. He did not counter it; he confirmed what the Hon Nick Smith had said which was that an injustice has been done to a very small group of people through no fault of any particular Government. It has happened by accident. Nick Smith has a way of amending it. I ask the Minister what harm it will do to have one small amendment that fixes that wrong. The Minister might take a call and explain that to us. 
The members of the minor parties have said that they have not had time to take the amendment to their caucuses and that they cannot consider it in such a short time. We have passed Supplementary Order Papers in this Chamber tonight that were 9 pages long. One of them was 17 pages long—on the fisheries amendment bill. I wonder how much time those parties spent considering that in their caucuses. Yet there is not time for them to consider one minor amendment to one clause so they cannot support it. It is unbelievable. 
Let me say this to the Minister: here is a chance for this Parliament to restore some of the dignity of this Parliament. Here is a chance to do that. It is often said about members of Parliament that they are dishonourable all of them go with what is popular and they will not do what is right. People say that all MPs go in whatever direction the wind is blowing. That is unfair. There are some hard-working and dedicated members of Parliament who are maligned by that public perception. Here is a chance for this Minister to right a wrong and do members think he will support it? Not on your nelly! 
The Hon Ken Shirley touched on a similar example earlier on—the West Coast Accord. That was passed by none other than Phil Goff under a Labour Government. In perpetuity the Government gave the West Coasters—a minority group once again—some certainty about their future and what they could do with their own property in their own area. What happened when the next Labour Government came in? It screwed the accord up and threw it out—and it was all done in the national interest supposedly. Here is another example of a contract that was entered into by Parliament by the Government—by the executive the 20 Cabinet Ministers of the day—not being honoured and not being carried out. This Government has a chance to fix that up. Will it do it? The answer is absolutely not. I can almost predict that it will not happen although the Minister is not saying one way or another. 
I acknowledge the contribution made by the honourable member Jim Peters tonight. He is a person who has a lot of knowledge about local government and a lot of depth of knowledge in a lot of other areas. I listened with great interest to the contribution to the debate from that member. This amendment would allay a lot of the fears that the member mentioned in his speech earlier on. It would fix some of the problems that the member talked about. He understands the concern here and this amendment would fix it. 
So I ask the Minister in the chair David Benson-Pope to take a call and explain to this Parliament tonight to the affected people and to the people out there who have formed a very bad opinion of what members of Parliament do in this place at this hour of the night why he will not accept this minor amendment put forward by the Hon Nick Smith who is trying to right a wrong that came about through no fault of any particular person—that came about by accident. There is a legal opinion—I was unaware of it until just before—that was given to the select committee that backs that up. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I will take a call from the Hon Nick Smith who has put an amendment but I point out to Dr Smith that there is only about 1 minute to go before I have to report progress. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I will keep my comments quite brief in terms of the important issue with regard to the Mackenzie Basin. I particularly want to issue a challenge to the Minister of Agriculture Mr Jim Sutton who is the member for Aoraki. I say to that member that there is a very intense interest in this issue in the Mackenzie Basin. This issue is a test of whether Mr Sutton will put first the interests of his constituents in the agreements that were made by his community with the Government back in 1969—whether he will ensure that the water allocation process puts right the injustice and does a fair deal for the people of the Mackenzie Basin—or whether he will back the Labour Party. That is the real test. We on the Opposition side of the Chamber say to Jim Sutton and to David Parker that they should back their constituents and should understand that their constitutional role is to do their best for their electorates. It is interesting that not a single Government member has risen to his or her feet and tried to justify that the people of the Mackenzie Basin should be short-changed. Yet secretly the Government members are so concerned for Meridian Energy that they are prepared to do that. 
Progress reported. 
The House adjourned at 9.55 p.m.