Jones ShaneHon SHANE JONES (Minister of Forestry): Just before I continue I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am quite serious that Speaker's ruling 121 which is often shoved—not at members of the vintage of my honourable colleague on the other side of the House there but at younger newer members. If I could seek some clarification: you cannot bring into the third reading stage references to what did not happen; you cannot bring into the third reading stage references to international drug testing data that did not actually feature as a part of the Supplementary Order Paper that he is referring to?The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I have to commend the member; you are correct in outlining that. However that member has concluded his speech and I would encourage the member if he is wanting to take a call on this third reading that he do so.Hon SHANE JONES: Thank you for those words of clarification. That is a great way to learn. I want to acknowledge the Chair of the committee. In having provided that latitude I shall now exercise that entitlement. What I think is very important when we look at this bill—which will pass and I acknowledge the chair of the select committee saying that despite his misgivings they will vote for it given the latitude that you visited upon him—this bill is in response to an original set of provisions that reflected unrealistic red tape. It also reflected a very complicated and bureaucratic approach to deal with an issue that requires not only focus but as few cobwebs as possible.What does this bill actually do now that it's been improved through the committee stage? It provides a regime for the testing of people who may or may not be impaired. A critical point that possibly divides this side of the House from our friends in Opposition is the morality associated with compulsion. Now although I never sat through any of the select committee proceedings I do acknowledge having had some experience in the fishing industry that rooting out the usage of mind-altering drugs etc. is something of great concern to any industry. But such are the drugs that are available and are used unfortunately it is well beyond the ability of a lot of drug testing to actually detect what is flowing through the system.Therein lies an inordinately big difficulty but you have to measure the handicaps of our drug-testing regime against the ability of an employee to assert their entitlements which they do have the ability to draw down on by dint of the law. Now you've got one side of the House who actually believes that employees have significant and honourable entitlements; you've got another side of the House as reflected in the divide in this debate who believes that they don't. I think that's an incredibly important principle and—as Madam Assistant Speaker you indicated—if you look at those Speakers' rulings principles are important in the development of the speeches in the peroration period of these bills.Now what else does this bill actually do? This bill provides for a regulatory framework enabling some national level of government otherwise known as a regional council to generate regulations to either assist or oblige—once they're enforced—craft to keep clear of when a rocket goes into outer space. I'll resist the opportunity to talk about the Opposition being lost in space because that will cause you to caution me and to go back and study the Speakers' rulings so I'll avoid that temptation. But the point that needs to be made is that we need to be passing provisions and regulations that do not thwart the ability of firms the ability of employees and the ability of businesses to go about their lawful duties.Now the reason—and I agree with the Minister promoting or shepherding the bill through the House that we cannot have a situation that we have in another maritime sector i.e. the fishing industry where inordinate levels of bureaucracy are visited upon them which is why my colleague has stood back and said Let's have another look at that." I think that was a problem with the original version prior to the refinement process during the committee stage of this bill. Do not overload do not threaten and do not squeeze out the initiative of businesses by an unnecessarily heavy and burdensome level of regulation which is why as Minister Whaitiri pointed out for smaller operators we need a fit for purpose regulation.I want to go on and talk for a moment about what's an incredibly important point for New Zealand which is our ability to access international funds or a fund to cope with the sad and woeful experience we had here in New Zealand when the vessel ran ashore as she said near Mōtītī Island. That shocked New Zealanders but I think what shocked us more was the inability to completely hold other than through a long protracted litigation process the shadowy forces behind these international shipping interests. We got the chap who was nominally in charge of the vessel and he served time but it took a great deal of effort and indeed some people are to this day deeply disappointed that the full cost was not borne by the shadowy interest behind a number of these international shipping lines. And not only are there lawyers but the manner in which they structure their affairs in international jurisdictions makes it extremely difficult. So this bill is an improvement in that sense; it enables our regulators it enables our Government to actually join others in litigation and a fund will exist.But if I can just come back to the main point of whether or not we are creating a system that is safe for the men and women—and I would say that I know a wee bit about it having a family member who is a young bosun on an oil boat so this is often a regular feature of discussion shall I say amongst that generation. I must confess while one shouldn't bring family members up in the House etc. he's 6 foot 5 115 kilograms better looking than his father if I can put it to you like that. A major challenge in a vessel of that nature obviously is safety and processes that ensure that no one is bucking the system and endangering the lives of their fellow crew members and I think the National Party member—I'm still learning his name but he came from a naval background—made a fair point and obviously he's got the bragging rights because he was the captain of a vessel. But I do think that at all times he wasn't a captain of the vessel—OK he's a backbencher today then sorry about that.But the point I would make is that on this side of the House and in New Zealand First naturally we're voting for this bill but we never lose sight—and a third reading opportunity is a great place to say it—of the balancing act needed in coming up with a regulation that will outlive us as politicians. We'll have come and gone coming up with a regulation that can be imposed or can be invoked to go ahead and exercise an entitlement in law to go ahead with a test but never ever in this House should we agree to testing regimes that become so burdensome we actually end up thwarting the initiative of many directors many business owners and indeed operators of these vessels.It's been a matter of considerable disappointment to me that a lot of the rhetoric that has come from our friends on the other side of the House—at one superficial level it's been pro-enterprise but when you look at how burdensome their regulation has actually turned out to be in practice they've said one thing but it's led to another. I think that's a salutary reminder for those of us parliamentarians when we pass legislation that then leads to delegated legislation in the form of regulation that we don't as we leave this place leave a legacy where businesses are drowning in very seriously burdensome levels of regulation.I can't help but conclude that the other side of the House despite having talked a big game in many cases have not left a legacy of fit for purpose regulation. Now through the committee stage with the introduction of a Supplementary Order Paper there's a sharper clarity around the importance of testing but there is an acceptance that employees have rights in law and those rights should not be just smudged out in order to suit ideological proclivities which from time to time are on full display on the other side of the House.So naturally I join with Jonathan Young and I acknowledge the work that the officials have done. I acknowledge the work that he and his committee members put up with in order to bring the bill here but I close this speech with a warning: do not introduce regulatory regimes that have the perverse effect of making it harder for businesses to flourish and maintain jobs. Thank you very much Madam Assistant Speaker."