Dyson Ruth: Maritime Transport Amendment Bill Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Amendment Bill — Third ReadingsText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDyson Ruth: Maritime Transport Amendment Bill Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Amendment Bill — Third Readings[Sitting date: 15 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:13872. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): That was indeed a brief call from Dr Cam Calder. In fact I do not recall ever having heard a speech from that member that had so few words in it. I was quite disappointed actually because his contributions to the House are usually very very interesting.Hon Maurice Williamson: Why don’t you see if you can beat him with even less?Hon RUTH DYSON: That Minister is no longer the Minister of Transport is he?Hon Maurice Williamson: No.Hon RUTH DYSON: No so I will not bother responding to that. It gives me great pleasure to speak in this third reading of the legislation arising from the Marine Legislation Bill. Before I get on to the substance of the legislation I want to make just a brief comment in regard not to the member who just resumed his seat but to the National member who previously contributed to this debate Chris Auchinvole who in the recent parliamentary adjournment announced that he was not seeking re-election. I just want to take the earliest opportunity to say that he has made many substantial contributions in this House in a way that I think should inspire others and in a way that sticks to policy issues rather than individual personal attacks. I think he has made some very thoughtful contributions. He almost beat Maurice Williamson in his contribution on the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill. It was a bit neck and neck at one stage. His contribution will be missed by me and I am sure many others in the House.Hon Maurice Williamson: Did you say we were neck and neck?Hon RUTH DYSON: Pardon?Hon Maurice Williamson: Did you say that Mr Auchinvole and I were neck and neck?Hon RUTH DYSON: That is correct. The legislation that we are discussing the Marine Legislation Bill has been split into two bills. The first bill is the Maritime Transport Amendment Bill and the second one is the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Amendment Bill. In regard to the first one the Maritime Transport Amendment Bill I am very pleased that Labour is able to support this bill. It is puzzling though to figure out why a bill that is so straightforward and in many respects without controversy where I think perhaps the unanimous support of the House has been indicated and where it does such important things in terms of the protection not just of our maritime safety but also of our taxpayer base has taken so long to get through. I am sure that if the Hon Maurice Williamson was still running this portfolio it would have been well and truly done and dusted. I can remember in previous Parliaments the Hon Maurice Williamson ramming legislation through the House because it was so important to get it through in a hurry. We discussed Plimsoll lines during debate on that legislation a number of times. I remember the member the Hon Maurice Williamson waving white handkerchiefs from his position when he was taking the Committee stage of that debate because he was so sick of hearing about Plimsoll lines. But actually he had a really strong understanding and commitment to the issues and I think that is what is obviously missing in regard to the lack of leadership shown by the Hon Gerry Brownlee in steering this legislation through the House.For goodness’ sake it has taken years. In 2008 at the time of the election this legislation with a little bit of addition was pretty well done and dusted by the last Labour-led Government. It was ready for introduction and progress through the House and now in October 2013 we finally see it getting to the last stage. It certainly could have and should have been passed some time ago. It is a bit of an indication really of the lack of management—not just the lack of vision but the lack of management—from this Government of the legislative process. Of course that is reflected in the lack of support of our citizens and in the management of our country as well.The primary part of this legislation is in regard to the conventions that it ratifies—the conventions that were signed prior to the 2008 election. If the Government had got on with the legislative work that we are doing now we would never have got into the difficulty that we got into with theRenaowners. The taxpayer base would have been protected and I am sure that every National Party member would be happy going up and down the country saying that National is the party that is interested in protecting the taxpayer and ratepayer base of New Zealand. But in regard to this very simple piece of legislation where there is no political opposition and lots of good reasons for supporting it National left the taxpayer dangling. We ended up with a taxpayer bill of over $50 million as a result not of theRena running aground but of the National Government not implementing this legislation which would have given us the base for clear liability and for putting the cost where the liability occurred. Because this Government the National Government had not progressed this legislation New Zealand taxpayers ended up with an unnecessary bill of $50 million. So thank goodness we are now at last getting this legislation passed. But in regard to the taxpayer debt on theRena it is too little and it is too late.The Crown did of course negotiate more than the original liability but that negotiation in itself cost a huge amount of money. We cannot just send in people who have got nothing better to do with their time to negotiate with the people who own theseships that have run aground and who are desperate to hold on to their money. We need skilled negotiators and they cost the New Zealand public a lot of money.I would have loved to hear an apology from one of the National members contributing to this debate—an apology to the New Zealand ratepayers for wasting $50 million of our money which could have been much better spent on any number of activities that we know are in need within our own communities. But no instead the Government had other more important priorities—to what sell State assets Mr Ross? It was something important like that. Or perhaps to stop the right of New Zealand families to take discrimination cases through the proper legal process in New Zealand if they are caring for family members. That is another thing that the Government gave urgency and priority to and put ahead on the legislative timetable so this legislation has been languishing for the length of time it has. I would like to hear an apology from the Government to the taxpayers and ratepayers of New Zealand before the end of this debate. This legislation was actually ready to progress.David Bennett: Why didn’t you do something when you were a Cabinet Minister?Hon RUTH DYSON: I cannot remember what Mr Bennett was doing in those days but he was doing a lot more than he has done recently.Carol Beaumont: Five long years Mr Bennett—5 long years.Hon RUTH DYSON: Five years and we are only getting to this legislation in October 2013. It was ready to progress. The member would have known that if he had done any homework which does not seem likely from his minimal contribution. He would have known that.In regard to the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Amendment Bill it is very disappointing that once again we have legislation that has so much potential and yet delivers so little. The legislation amends the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act. That legislation itself was so weak. It was very recently passed by this Parliament and yet we have amendments to it already. This legislation was promoted as being the protection for the environment that was lacking in our legislative framework. I admit there is a gap there that needs filling but this legislation does nothing at all to protect the environment.We know that the Ministers who are driving this agenda are staunch defenders not of the environment not of health and safety and not of security of our pristine marine areas but just of the drilling companies. We heard the Hon Simon Bridges in his contribution yelling at John Campbell last night in an extraordinary performance where he just repeated over and over and over again the lines he had been given. That was not just dismissive of John Campbell—I suppose when you put yourself in a position like that as a journalist and an interviewer you may expect pretty robust debate—but actually offensive to the people ofKaikōura the people who for the first half of that programme expressed their high levels of anxiety and their lack of trust in the National Government the Government that actually those very same people had voted for. The very people who voted for Colin King to be their member of Parliament are now saying that they do not trust the National Government. They will look at this legislation and their fears will be realised.So with reluctance we are opposing a wasted opportunity to improve protection of our exclusive economic zone and certainly supporting the Maritime Transport Amendment Bill.