Volume 619 Week 63 - Thursday 5 August 2004 
Volume 619 Week 63 - Thursday 5 August 2004 
[Volume:619;Page:14661] 
Thursday 5 August 2004 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House priority will be given to the completion of the remaining stages of the Building Bill the Education (Export Education Levy) Amendment Bill and the Electricity and Gas Industries Bill. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 Having noticed the extraordinarily large number of second readings and Committee stages on the Order Paper and having seen the number of bills at select committees that are due back in the House very very shortly I ask whether he expects that in the next 3-week block of Parliament there will be extended hours so that the Government might advance its business. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 At the moment I regard the Order Paper as manageable but I am always open to offers for extended hours. 
Questions to Ministers 
Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology—Community Education 
1. Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education) 
: Does he have any concerns about the way community education funding has been used by Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education)) 
: 
 I do. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why has the Minister’s press release today virtually endorsed a situation where the Government paid $795 for a $5 CD; where the Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology set out to deliberately exploit funding loopholes before they were closed; where only 3 percent of the 18000 enrolled students are known to have completed the course; where of the 18000 enrolments 13000 did not fit the Government criteria and nothing was done; and where senior polytechnic and ministry officials knew about all this and did nothing? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: My press release today points to the fact that the Tertiary Education Commission has responsibility to deal with this issue but I certainly applaud as did the member that it has regained the $83000 that was improperly used by the Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology. In fact that was the amount of money asked for by that member in a press release. He asked me a question explicitly about that amount of money so he has got what he wanted. 
I have also endorsed the fact that the commission will now be evaluating those enrolments and I hope we arrive at a situation where the polytechnic does pay more money back. 
Lynne Pillay 
: What expectations does he have of organisations that receive public money for tertiary education? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I expect that all organisations that receive public money especially public institutions act ethically responsibly and accountably in their use of public money. We are now entering a phase where we are moving from a demand-led to a more strategic approach to tertiary spending. That is where I expect us to go. I believe that is a much better approach than the approach offered by Bill English in which he would sit behind his desk and decide what people learn in institutions in this country. 
Heather Roy 
: How can taxpayers have any confidence in the Labour Government’s spending given that the Minister told the House on 27 November 2001 in response to another funding scam revealed by ACT that he gave an absolute assurance there were no other incidents of this scale? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The entire question was abstract. I do not have the faintest idea what the member is talking about. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am sorry Mr Hide. That is the one warning today. There will be no interjections during points of order. 
Rodney Hide 
: The question asked how taxpayers could have any confidence in the Minister. His answer was that he did not understand the question. We are quite happy to put it again but if the Minister cannot explain why taxpayers should have confidence in him as Minister I think the answer is self-evident to the House. I am sure he has to reply to that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am certain he does too. The Minister will please respond. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: They can have confidence because of course we do hold accountable at every turn people who spend public money. That is what this Government is about. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why is the Minister turning a blind eye to a $15 million scam whereby the management of Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology ruthlessly exploited his rules senior Government officials let it happen no one acted ethically or responsibly and the Minister is not exercising any accountability? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I assure the member that I am not turning a blind eye. Today I applaud the fact that we are seeing the return of money used to induce students into the course inappropriately and I applaud the fact that the Tertiary Education Commission and the polytechnic will now evaluate all the enrolments. I am looking forward to seeing more money paid back. 
Hon Bill English 
: Who will be held accountable for the bureaucratic shambles the dishonest behaviour and the lack of professionalism; will it be him and his weak enforcement of his stupid policy his officials who let it happen or the people in Christchurch who did it? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: In answer to the member’s question concerning who is accountable he will know that the Tertiary Education Commission makes funding decisions under section 159J(4) of the Education Act 1989 so it will be accountable and that the polytech itself has a responsibility to spend taxpayers’ money wisely so it will be accountable and I will make sure they are. 
Heather Roy 
: Which of the following personal achievements in the Minister’s blameless life of excellence does he consider the greatest: the potential misuse of thousands of dollars if not millions at Christchurch polytech; the millions lost on computers supplied to non-existent students at the Practical Education Training Centre in Taranaki in 2001; wasted thousands that went to social entrepreneurs including hip-hop; the tens of thousands— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will come to the point. I have just about had enough of the question. 
Heather Roy 
: —and when will he ever accept responsibility for some of the most inept ministerial stewardship in this country’s history? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The member is a new member so clearly her memory is very short. I think the thing I like most in the education area is the 7000 Modern Apprenticeships that are out there today. 
Floods—Financial Assistance Eastern Bay of Plenty 
2.  
MITA RIRINUI (Labour—Waiariki) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What is being done to assist families affected by the recent flooding in the Eastern Bay of Plenty? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 Apart from the excellent work done by that member yesterday I met with the mayors of Whakatane and Opotiki District Councils to discuss the Government’s relief measures for flood and earthquake affected areas in Eastern Bay of Plenty. The relief measures at an estimated $30 million have been developed in close cooperation with local councils farmers and voluntary and business groups. Having seen the impact of the flooding and met some of the people working on the ground to assist with recovery I have to say I have absolutely nothing but praise for the efforts of people in this region. I take the opportunity today to put on record my thanks to staff in my areas of responsibility—the Ministry of Social Development Work and Income and the Housing New Zealand Corporation. They have done an amazing job on behalf of those communities in that area. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: What assurances can the Minister give that Government support will be forthcoming for the rebuilding of the pivotal stopbanks that protect not only the farming community but also the people of the townships of Edgecumbe and Whakatane? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: As the member will know central government meets 100 percent of some of those costs such as assisting displaced people. In areas like stopbank repair there is in place the same scheme as in the Manawatu-Rangitikei area which is the 60:40 split that exists between the two levels of government in paying for these changes. I also understand that this split-cost arrangement has been in place for a number of years. It was put in place in about 1987 from memory and although Governments have varied it a bit that is the pattern that has been followed. 
Judy Turner 
: Can the Minister inform the House about the sort of contingency plan the Government has to respond to the current survey that the recovery centre in Whakatane is conducting to ascertain the damage to uninsured and underinsured households and businesses? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I met yesterday with the group that will receive that survey and those people convinced me that they are in good shape right across both Government and non-Government organisations to receive that report and rapidly put into action the needed assistance. 
Immigration—Fraud 
3.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Immigration 
: Why did he say with respect to immigration fraud “He [Rt Hon Winston Peters] has raised points many times over the years but provided little evidence.”? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Associate Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 Because it is true. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is it not a fact that the Minister and his colleagues know that this party has given evidence time and time again in this House and outside of it in relation to cases like those of Ekatarina Ross and Mohammed Saidi who lied his way into this country on a false claim of refugee status of English-language scams that ended up on the  
Assignment 
 programme and in relation to a long list of other cases but that the answer has always been when we have sought to follow those cases up to quote from his former colleague “The Privacy Act prevents these cases from being discussed.”; why does he not admit the fact that he 
has been found out and so has his party? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I think that I and the House are very aware of many allegations made by that member. However allegations do not equate to evidence. Every one of those allegations has been followed up but without evidence being provided by the member most of them have been proven to be untrue. 
Dianne Yates 
: What is the Government doing to combat immigration fraud? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: In the 2003-04 Budget over $19 million of extra funding was provided to the Department of Labour’s Immigration Service. That is spread over 4 years for a range of compliance-related activities including increased capability in the areas of intelligence work fraud investigation and removals. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: What is the Minister doing about the culture of fraud as revealed by the “lying in unison” report that exists within the New Zealand Immigration Service itself given 30 investigations involving staff fraud for the year ended 30 June this year and three new investigations last month alone? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I completely refute any claims of a culture of fraud at all. With a service such as the New Zealand Immigration Service it is inevitable that of the many hundreds of thousands of people who apply to come into this country some who are disappointed because they are turned down will make malicious claims against individual staff. Whenever those claims are made they are investigated as being very serious claims. Thankfully most of them are proved to be untrue. 
Larry Baldock 
: Can he confirm that neither he nor the Minister of Immigration has ever received any policy proposals or suggestions from the Rt Hon Winston Peters on the subject of immigration? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My point of order is blatantly obvious. Three election campaigns numerous manifesto statements— 
Hon Bill English 
: That’s not a point of order. proposals or suggestions from the Rt Hon Winston Peters on the subject of immigration? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Hang on; I am getting to it. More important we are now being asked to have the Minister interpret what that means. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the member has not raised a point of order. He has raised a political point and he has made his point. The Minister will now answer. 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I have certainly not received any policy ideas from the Rt Hon Winston Peters and I am not sure whether my colleague the Hon Paul Swain has either. I doubt it. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is the Minister prepared to put his career on the line today and to come to this House with any evidence that we have raised any matter to do with fraud and not sent the substantial evidence to go with it such as for example evidence regarding SaiedGhanbari the very person leaving tomorrow because we found him not the Minister or his ministry? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I am aware of many many allegations made in this House by that member about immigration matters. That member very rarely provides any evidence to back up those claims. I stand by that. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I ask the Minister again whether he will put his career on the line and back up two answers he has given today to the effect that we in New Zealand First have failed to provide him or his colleagues with information to back up questions in this House on fraud; and if it is true that he has been provided with the information will he resign from Parliament for having misled it? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: There are numerous—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Tempting though that may be could we hear the answer from the Minister. [ 
Interruption 
] I know that. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. May I have this answer heard in some degree of silence. Mr Prebble yelled out in the first person and that is totally outside the Standing Orders. Unlike him yes I would resign but I will not be fired for it like he was. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member is quite right. I did call out in the first person; that is completely correct. But I do think this is a very serious matter. Mr Peters is telling this House and the country that if he has not backed up every single allegation that he has made in this House he will resign. As this is his last day in the House I think we should pay our respects to him. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will make only one comment which is that the interjection was made in the second person not the first. 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: As I said before many allegations are made. Sometimes I am aware of letters being passed on to the service putting down those allegations. However that does not mean that there is any evidence whatsoever to back up those allegations. When investigated by the New Zealand Immigration Service they have proved to lack any substantive claim. 
Dianne Yates 
: What has been the outcome of the increased focus on verification? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: There have been very very good outcomes. The increased focus on verification has meant that we have many more fraudulent job offers being exposed. We have many more investor applications being declined and we have the establishment of a new fraud and investigations unit that specialises in that area. We are making huge progress in that area in an international world that sees increasing levels of fraudulent activity. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is the Minister prepared to apologise to this House and to New Zealand First for the claims that Labour made in the 2002 election that everything we said was either racist or worse and was not true when just yesterday he made it very clear that every claim that was made was true and that that is why there are extra resources—except that we now have thousands of fraudsters here and you have no idea who they are? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am not to be brought into the debate but the Minister can answer for himself. 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: No. 
Larry Baldock 
: I seek leave to table a letter from the Hon Paul Swain that confirms that since taking up the labour and immigration portfolios in February 2004 he has not received any correspondence from any of the aforementioned spokespersons on the issue of policy. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Energy—Renewable Energy 
4.  
NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Tainui) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy 
: What progress is being made in developing renewable energy in New Zealand? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Energy) 
: 
 Very good progress. Wind power is set to grow fourfold by the end of this year—the year ending in December. All of that remarkable increase has been driven by carbon credits arising from this Governments climate change policy. 
Nanaia Mahuta 
: When can New Zealanders expect to see the results of this policy? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: They are already seeing it of course but the member’s question is a good one because this Government intends to continue the way we started. In the next month or two we will put 6 million tonnes of carbon credits out to tender and are confident we will receive from our very innovative economy many bids to reduce pollution. 
Rod Donald 
: Would the strong growth in electricity generation from wind power have occurred without the Government’s climate change policy and the legislation that was supported by the Green Party? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: No it would not have. The large developments in wind power this year which by the end of this year will give us the largest and the second-largest wind farms in the Southern Hemisphere would not have proceeded without carbon credits. Under our policy not only will polluters pay but non-polluters will be paid. Under National’s policy which is still not on its website none of that sort of thing can happen because it is a dog. 
Peter Brown 
: Is the Minister convinced that renewable energy is coming on stream in sufficient quantities to truly have a competitive market which would put downward pressure on prices or is it just a case of keeping pace with demand which will enable retailers to sell everything at any price they so desire? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: That member will be aware of a number of generation projects recently under way and might be aware of a number of others that are soon to be announced. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Could the Minister tell the House approximately how many windmills across our landscape would be required to produce say 20 percent of our base electricity demand and can he confirm that they would need to be backed up with thermal generation because of the intermittent and unpredictable nature of wind blow? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: New Zealand will always need thermal generation; most renewable energy systems do. The only exceptions are where there is remarkable storage as there is in Norway. In New Zealand we can have certainly 20 percent of our energy come from wind. How many turbines would depend on the size of each turbine but I have been to a wind farm—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Cheap comments like that do not help Parliament at all. That member will stand withdraw and apologise. 
Brian Connell 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think there is a long-held understanding that interjections that are particularly witty are acceptable; describing the Minister as a wind farm was very witty. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member might think that; I certainly did not—not even half that. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I have been to a wind farm with 7200 turbines and if each of those produced a megawatt that would be as much electricity as we need. 
Rod Donald 
: What other steps is the Government taking to encourage wind power such as funding the identification of suitable wind farm sites which would help to match the assistance the Government is already giving to the drilling industry? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I do not think there is any necessity for further assistance in identifying sites. There is now quite a large body of knowledge about the wind potential in New Zealand. The main thing that is needed for wind power to progress further is a very favourable planning system for which the Greens have offered their assistance and indeed carbon credits which is the sort of thing that could not happen under a National Party Government because it does not have the imagination to do it. 
Question No. 5 to Minister 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I seek leave for this question to be held over until the Minister of Maori Affairs would be in a better position to answer it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is. Please ask the question. 
Maori Language Commission—Confidence 
5.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Maori Affairs 
: Does he have confidence in the board of the Maori Language Commission; if not why not? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Associate Minister of Maori Affairs) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Maori Affairs 
: Yes. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Will the Minister be asking Dr James Buwalda Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Labour to give advice to Dr Hohepa on how best to get rid of a staff member who has annoyed the Government; if not will he call upon his own considerable experience as a senior State servant and seller of Labour Party raffle tickets to bring in new guidelines for politically active civil servants? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: No. To bring the House up to date I have been advised that the board has acknowledged by way of writing to the Minister that an error of judgment has been made by its chief executive. He has been censured by the board. The board is working with the State Services Commission and Te PuniKokiri to make sure that there are clear guidelines in place for the Maori Language Commission’s staff in terms of appropriate conduct. Finally the board will take these matters into account when the chief executive officer’s employment contract comes up for review in May of 2005. The Minister is extraordinarily comfortable with that result from the commission. 
Jill Pettis 
: Can the Minister please advise the House what are the key achievements of the Maori Language Commission? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: This is another reason why we have confidence in the board. Highlights to name four very quickly include a leading-edge joint initiative entered into between the commission and Microsoft with regard to the promotion of the language; it has won the prestigious 2004 Computerworld award for the Matapuna Dictionary Database System; it promotes the Maori language internationally through the International Polynesian Language Forum and brings New Zealand into a great vista in that regard; and finally it leads the promotion of te reo through the Maori Language Week in partnership with the Human Rights Commission. This Government has significantly increased its investment in the promotion of the language and the commission is doing a fine job in that regard. 
Tariana Turia 
: Can the Minister explain to the House the difference between an employee of a Crown agency and an employee of a Crown entity and does an employee of a Crown entity participate in the Crown policy process? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: All employees who source their dollar values from the Queen’s shilling have a range of conducts to live up to. Maori civil servants in particular do not have standards that are lesser than others which that member might well want. 
Tariana Turia 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister did not answer my question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister might not have answered it to the member’s satisfaction but I thought he addressed it. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Can we take it from the Minister’s previous answer that Mr Piripi is not going to be required to resign that he has simply been slapped with a wet bus ticket and that the new standard is that State servants can attack the Government Parliament and the Leader of the Opposition and suffer very little consequence for it? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: Censure and discipline are a matter between the employing commission and the chief executive officer. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Is the real reason the Minister feels obliged to express confidence in the Maori Language Commission because virtually every Maori in New Zealand thinks that the Government’s foreshore legislation is confiscation; if that is not so would the Minister care to name any person who is qualified to be on the Maori Language Commission who ought to be its chief executive—apart from his Labour Maori colleagues—who can speak Maori and who does not believe that the Government’s legislation is confiscation? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: No and I will come back to the member on the second part of his question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Has the Government received reports on a most curious circumstance—Mr Prebble’s almost 100 percent Maori thinking it is confiscation and Mr Brash and the National Party saying that Maori got all they wanted? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not in relation to this Minister’s portfolio or this particular question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would not ordinarily raise the point but Mr Prebble put it in contention you did not rule it out and therefore I think it is now in as an appropriate issue about which I can ask a supplementary question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No Mr Prebble asked him about the chair of the commission and the people concerned. He directly related it to the original question. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Noting his previous answers can the Minister tell the House specifically what penalty Haami Piripi has paid for his indiscretions? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: The matters that I alerted the member to with regard to the commission’s response to its chief executive officer are the only details I have at the moment. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask you to consider that answer. Are we to accept that the Minister knows only what is in a press release and that there is no communication between the Minister’s office and the Maori Language Commission? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member cannot ask me that question. It is not my job as Speaker. I do not have knowledge of every detail of every question; nor should I. I have to agree as to whether the question was addressed and it was. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My point of order is that while you do not have to know the details of activity you do have to determine whether a question is addressed. I am asking you whether it is acceptable for a Minister to come into the House and firstly give an answer to a question that relates to information he is supposed to have in front of him and then later concede that the information is only by way of press release and expect the House to believe there has been no communication between him and the agency he is responsible for? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not need any assistance. I ruled that was a proper response and it was. [ 
Interruption 
] The member will stand withdraw and apologise for that comment because it was directed at me. It was in the second person. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I apologise. It was not directed at you. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If that is the case I accept the member’s word. 
Rodney Hide 
: In light of the widespread concern that there is a witch-hunt under way against Maori civil servants who have a view different from the Government can the Minister shed any light on the involvement of his colleague the Hon John Tamihere in the resignation of a senior Department of Labour employee; if not why not? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister can answer as Minister of Maori Affairs. 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: The Minister has consulted Mr Tamihere and as part of that consultation process the reality is no. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think the House does deserve a little bit of clarification. Is the Minister’s answer that the Minister of Maori Affairs has consulted with the Hon John Tamihere and as a consequence of that consultation the Minister of Maori Affairs like the rest of the country is no further ahead in understanding quite what John Tamihere was up to? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister gave an absolutely direct answer. 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: I seek the leave of the House to table a piece of correspondence forwarded to the Minister of Maori Affairs by the Maori Language Commission identifying the range of issues it is going to clarify. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Taitokerau Forests Ltd—Government Funding 
6.  
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he believe that bailing out embattled Taitokerau Forests Ltd is a prudent use of public funds; if so why? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 On balance yes. Without providing this incremental financing the Crown faced the very real possibility that it would have little if any hope of recovering its $50 million in advances and capitalised interest to date since 1986. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Will the Minister explain to taxpayers why they should involuntarily bear the ongoing financial burden of Taitokerau Forests Ltd a company that as he has just mentioned has already racked up a debt of $50 million has been turned away by a multitude of commercial lenders and is now seeking a further $3.6 million from the public purse? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The sum of $3.6 million has already been voted; it is not being sought. The answer to the first part of the question is that the $50 million would have been at serious risk. The Crown of course had the alternative of allowing the company to fall over but then it would have had to take on the ownership risk and the management of the forest. On balance it was thought better to take on some increased debt risk which in the end is secured for the underlying value of the forest itself. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does the Government have any idea of what the problem is with the particular forest management and can he assure the House that this will not be an ongoing problem that the Government regularly has to tip money into in order to bail out organisations like this? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Dealing with the second part which I think is the more important I can say that harvesting will occur from 2009 so a cash flow will begin to be generated from that point. In retrospect I think it was probably a most unwise decision by the then Minister of Finance Roger Douglas to have entered into this initial arrangement. 
Pita Paraone 
: Can the Minister confirm firstly that in 1996 the Government re-examined this and decided that it would continue to fund as the equity in the trees was such as to advance this situation; secondly that the Crown has a first mortgage secured over the trees; and thirdly that all was signed off by the then Minister of Finance Bill Birch in 1996? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I can confirm that in 1996 the review was undertaken on those grounds and that the then Minister of Finance Bill Birch approved the process. An attempt has been made to raise private financing. That was not possible. It does suggest obviously some difficulties but the problem for the Crown was that it already had $50 million at risk. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Can the Minister confirm that there is a first mortgage over the company’s assets; if so why did the Crown not choose to exercise its rights in that regard instead of putting some more money into the show? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Crown then thought it was better to leave arrangements as they were. It is confident that when we reach the point of 2009 the cash flow being generated will be sufficient for repayment to occur of the debt owed to the Crown. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Nevertheless given the track record of the management of the company is the public not left with a perception that the Government is acting as a kind of political sugar daddy to this company playing favourites with a floundering management style at the expense of the taxpayer; if not why not. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I think I can say that on reflection and in retrospect had the then Minister of Finance—the foundation leader of the ACT party—not entered into the arrangement things might have been better. But they were entered into. This Government inherited a large amount of money at risk and it was better in fact to loan a further $3.6 million than risk the $50 million going under. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to table the two appropriate documents that demonstrate Mr Dunne supported the initial decision in 1986 of Roger Douglas and the decision of Bill Birch and Jim Bolger in 1996 when Mr Dunne was a Minister. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. 
Documents not tabled. 
Alcohol and Drug Abuse—Youth 
7.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Health 
: Is he satisfied that the Government has employed appropriate measures to protect New Zealand children from the misuse of alcohol and illicit drugs? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Associate Minister of Health) 
: 
 Of course central government has a vital role to play in equipping families communities and agencies of the State to combat the problem of drug and alcohol abuse. I cannot say that we can ever be satisfied—“we” being the collective Parliament or any individual Government—that we have done enough but the National Drug Policy aims to improve the health and well-being of New Zealanders by encouraging the development of strategies and programmes that prevent and reduce drug-related harm. It is a very wide-ranging and comprehensive programme as its website shows that includes $66 million committed over the last 2 years alone plus a drink culture change programme announced in June this year funded by a levy on alcohol sales. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Has the Minister talked to any of his Cabinet colleagues or coalition colleagues about the misuse of a very serious issue under the guise of his latest glossy publication to be sent around this country—under his name and using taxpayers’ dollars—to seek political advantage for a very small party to do with an issue that should cross party lines and is far more important surely than petty party politics? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I am very proud of the work that the Government is doing on drug and alcohol abuse prevention. That brochure was funded by my ministerial budget and authorised by the Auditor-General. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Why has the Government failed to do anything effective about the significant damage caused to thousands of newborn New Zealanders by alcohol consumption during pregnancy despite the fact that during the last 2 years there have been two petitions on the subject and his officials have recognised that: “It’s a real problem and it’s under-reported.”? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I am advised by the Ministry of Health that it has been preparing an application to the Australia New Zealand Food Authority for this provision to be agreed to on a trans-Tasman basis. I will be very interested in the outcome of that application. I believe that obviously if New Zealand children are under any threat then New Zealand as a sovereign nation will have the ability to deal with that matter if it has to on its own. 
Larry Baldock 
: Can the Minister confirm that the Auckland Regional Community Action Project on Alcohol study which showed that over half the retailers visited sold alcohol to under-18-year-olds without asking for identification focused entirely on off-licence premises; and in the light of other studies that suggest it is the volume of alcohol consumed by young people that has increased rather than the frequency of drinking does he agree that off-licence premises are more likely to generate binge drinking because they sell alcohol at cheaper prices and without the supervision that licensed premises offer? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: The sale or provision of alcohol to those who are under the legal age is a serious matter no matter where or how it is done. There is plenty of evidence that a number of outlets are doing that—at the grocery level less at the supermarket level and more at the off-licence level. Unfortunately one has to say that there is also evidence that something like 50 percent of the alcohol given to young people is given to them by their parents. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Has the Minister seen the 2003 study by Saffer and Dave of the US National Bureau of Economic Research which indicated that a complete ban on all alcohol advertising could reduce adolescent monthly alcohol participation by about 24 percent and binge participation by about 42 percent; and my knowing of his support for this issue will he make a commitment today to do all he can to persuade the ministerial committee on drug policy to support at its next meeting a ban on alcohol advertising? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I have seen a lot of statistics about the effects of advertising and promotion of alcohol and I have a conservative view in terms of the way it is promoted. I have to say however that the most significant piece of evidence I have had from a lot of jurisdictions is that the single most effective step that this Parliament could take would be to raise the age of entitlement to purchase alcohol to 20 years. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Did the Minister take any advice or receive any reports that said that by putting his name to the brochure that has come out he would add to the cause of defeating this scourge or would mitigate against people joining the cause in the way that other people suspect; depending on his answer why would he do that when the issue is so serious? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I think the issue is serious. That is why I took the step in terms of financial propriety of getting advice from the Auditor-General. I also thought very carefully about the wording of that brochure. I tell the member that we have had a positive response from the something like 600 schools the brochure was mailed to with 25 percent wanting more of those leaflets and more information about the programmes the Government is running. I think that is a very positive effect. 
Larry Baldock 
: In light of the Minister’s answer to my previous question in which he acknowledged the risks to youth in their purchasing alcohol at off-licence premises would he therefore support the common-sense solution offered by Paul Adams in his member’s bill of increasing the age at which alcohol can be purchased at off-licences to 20 years while keeping the age at which alcohol can be purchased at on-licence premises at 18 years? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I am all for simplicity and low compliance costs in legislation and if we give a mixed message like that it makes the situation even more complex than it is now. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: I seek leave to table a report that demonstrates the gross under-reporting of foetal alcohol syndrome under this Government. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. 
Document not tabled. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: I seek leave to table a study called  
Alcohol Advertising and Alcohol Consumption by Adolescents 
 by Saffer and Dave published in 2003. 
Document by leave laid on the table of the House. 
Prisons—Management 
8.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay Of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: Does he stand by his statement to the House of 18 November 2003: “If we look at the public prison system in New Zealand and compare its management of remand prisons with private prisons we see that the public prison service is on average $7000 cheaper than the private prison.”; if so why? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 Yes because it was based on costings provided to me by my department. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: If the Government can apparently run the Auckland Central Remand Prison cheaper than the private sector why is it budgeting to spend an extra $8.5 million running that prison when it takes it over? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I am extraordinarily pleased that the member asked that question because the answer is simply that the previous National Government funded the Auckland Central Remand Prison up until the end of the contract. It did not fund it beyond that. This money would be required whether or not the prison was in private hands. 
Georgina Beyer 
: How does the overall performance of New Zealand prisons compare internationally? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: It compares very favourably. As I previously reported to the House New Zealand prisons have a lower cost per day than those in Australia England Wales and Canada. New Zealand also has the lowest rates of suicide and assault compared with comparable jurisdictions. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Does the Minister agree that for the Government to pursue a policy of privatising prisons and drastically increasing the prison population as advocated by the leader of the National Party would lead to a dangerous Americanisation of our justice system and what effect does he think that would have on the integrity of our justice system? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Except for the parenthesis comment about that being advocated by a party the rest of the question is in order and that part of it will be answered. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Except for the part in parenthesis yes I agree. The fact is that in the United States the private prison lobby is now a very well-entrenched lobby. It lobbies Governments to get tougher on law and order thereby meaning more people are put in prisons leading to more profit by private prisons. That is precisely the issue that has been raised by the National Party in its attempt to try to court votes. The point is that the only person who should be taking away people’s liberty is the State; it should not be done by the private sector for private profit. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Does the Minister not realise that his statements make no sense when he tells the House that the public prison service can operate the private prison for $7000 an inmate less but his own official departmental documents show that it will cost $28000 an inmate more once the Government takes the prison over? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: The problem with the member is that he does not read the papers properly. The other problem is that he opposes having prisons in his electorate but supports Don Brash building 10 more prisons—and that party wants to take away the right under the Resource Management Act to appeal against that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Now the member will come to the question. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Sorry; I apologise. The fact is that the Auckland Central Remand Prison in public ownership will have to be funded just like it would have to be funded if it were under private ownership. The previous National Government did not provide funding for it past the contract ending in 2005 and that is why the $8 million has to be provided. 
Ron Mark 
: Why did the Minister choose to ignore reports like the one in the  
New Zealand Herald  
on 10 September 2003 which said that since Australian Correctional Management had taken over the Auckland Central Remand Prison: “There has been a revolution in prison management. A new approach has set standards previously thought impossible across every area of the prison.” and that despite handling some of New Zealand’s most dangerous and high-risk inmates it remains the safest prison in the country for both staff and inmates alike? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Because I do not believe everything I read in the  
New Zealand Herald 
. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Did the Minister read his own official papers that state funding is required for the ongoing operation of the Auckland Central Remand Prison in addition to the current funding of $11.1 million? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Yes. As I have explained to the member despite the opposition from the Department of Corrections at the time when the previous National Government funded that prison it funded the prison until the end of the contract and not beyond that. That is what the funding is required for. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I seek leave to table a number of documents. The first is the Budget bid of the Department of Corrections which shows it will cost $20 million to run the prison and the department needs an extra $8.5 million. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I seek leave to table a document from the Audit Office about the additional $8.5 million. 
Document not tabled. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I seek leave to table an official document from the Department of Corrections about the additional $8.5 million as well. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is. 
Visas—Pakistani Immigrants 
9.  
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: Did Senior Sergeant Mike Fulcher receive a police report in or about May this year from the South Asian liaison officer for the New Zealand Police with photographs and fingerprints detailing an immigration scam involving Pakistani nationals entering New Zealand through Tonga? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 Yes. Police have with the additional information provided today been able to identify that an allegation relating to a Tongan immigration scam was reported by a south Auckland sergeant to his immediate superior Senior Sergeant Fulcher in April this year. The two-page report outlined an allegation that came from an informant in Auckland that Pakistani nationals had been obtaining holiday visas from the Immigration Service office in Tonga in exchange for money. As the House was told yesterday the Immigration Service has advised that no such visas have been issued to Pakistani nationals from Tonga since 1999-2000 a fact that casts doubt on at least that part of the allegation. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Yesterday the Minister of Police denied that such a report existed. [ 
Interruption 
] We get this every time and you do nothing. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have warned members about interjecting. The member will please carry on. 
Rodney Hide 
: That was a former Minister of Immigration trying to have a go. If she wants to say that the Minister of Police did not  
Hansard 
 shows clearly that he did and I am happy to read it out. The Minister of Police came to the House and twice denied—and I look to members to agree—that such a report existed. We now have the Minister of Police saying oh yes there is a report. The standard expectation in the House is that as soon as a Minister realises that he or she has inadvertently misled the House he or she should correct the record. The Minister did no such thing. I ask you whether you consider that to be acceptable. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: There are a couple of points there. First of all obviously the Minister yesterday gave an answer based on the information made available to him by his officials that no such report had been found. Today with more information provided—it would be very useful if members would actually provide the information in the first case when they submit the question as opposed to playing little games in their question—it has been possible to find the report. Even then it is not a police report “detailing an immigration scam” it is an allegation made to a police officer for which no other evidence has been found. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Let me say that the member raised a point of order accurately. It should have been corrected when the Minister became aware of the inaccuracy. The fact of the matter is that the Minister may not have been wrong yesterday and he may not be wrong today. There is a discrepancy there and I say to the Minister that he should have come to the House and corrected it. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: How come a police officer can write a report detailing an immigration scam and providing names and dates yet the Minister of Immigration and the Minister of Police deny any knowledge of it; how on earth can the public have any confidence in our border security? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Every year there are thousands of such reports written by police on various matters over a wide range of areas. If the member had chosen on at least two occasions earlier this year to give some details then an explanation could have been provided. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: Is there any evidence that such a scam if it existed was successful at gaining entry for Pakistani nationals via Tonga? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: No there is no evidence that the scam actually existed. So far all we have is an allegation reported from one south Auckland police officer to another. If the scam did exist it was apparently a failure because the Immigration Service has confirmed that there have been no visitor visas issued to Pakistani nationals by the Tongan office since 1999-2000—fraudulent or otherwise. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: What investigations are the police undertaking of New Zealand Immigration Service staff given that 29 allegations of fraud against staff were proven between 2001 and 2003 and that there are now 30 new investigations for last year and three just in the last month? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I do not have that information with me but I will supply it to the member as soon as I can. 
Rodney Hide 
: Can the Minister confirm that this police report on form 258 identified as the source a Mr Mohammed Shaheed who was the organiser of this scam and that the real reason no evidence has been found for this immigration scam is neither the police nor the Immigration Service has undertaken any investigation of it and that we have the Minister of Police and the Minister of Immigration completely in the dark and once again it requires Opposition parties to do their job for them? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: The person the member mentioned Mr Shaheed was an overstayer and he was removed from this country on 22 April 2004. Of course if we get the information if responsible members take their complaints where they should go rather than try to make political capital out of it this place would be a lot better off. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister keeps demanding that we provide the evidence. The police have provided the report. We have pointed him in the direction of the report. What else do we have to do? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order and the member knows it. 
Waste Strategy—Parliamentary Service 
10.  
MIKE WARD (Green) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: Has she made any representation to the General Manager of the Parliamentary Service to implement the New Zealand waste strategy within Parliament; if so what was the response? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 Yes I wrote to the Parliamentary Service on 27 July inviting it to join the Ministry for the Environment Govt3 programme which aims to help Government agencies improve the sustainability of their actions. Ministry officials are assisting parliamentary management with ideas to minimise the environmental impact of Parliament’s operations. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am just about to ask a member to leave who has disobeyed my instructions. 
Rodney Hide 
: OK thank you. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Right. 
Mike Ward 
: Does she believe that it is important for the Government as the most visible face of central government to lead by example in terms of its resource use and waste production? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: I would not want to focus on just one Government agency because I believe that a school for example is the most evident Government agency as regards our students. But I am looking forward to the Parliamentary Service joining the Govt3 agency. 
Dave Hereora 
: What practical steps is the Government taking to reduce waste? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: I can give two examples. On Tuesday I will sign a new packaging accord with industry recyclers and central and local government to reduce the amount of packaging that gets dumped and the following week I will be highlighting activities of Government agencies that have signed up to the Govt3 programme to improve environmental sustainability. 
Mike Ward 
: Does she believe that Parliament is acting in accordance with the intention of the New Zealand waste strategy and is it leading by example when it refuses to purchase recycled paper for use in its printers and photocopiers? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: Under the Govt3 programme special topic groups have been set up. They cover such topics as office waste and office paper. 
Mike Ward 
: Does the Minister believe that Parliament is acting in accordance with the intention of the New Zealand waste strategy and is it leading by example when it replaces glasses in select committee rooms with plastic cups and when plastic containers in food outlets replace paper bags? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister has very little responsibility for that. The Speaker does and the member can always approach me. The Minister can give an opinion if she likes but it will be a very brief one. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: The Minister is encouraging the Parliamentary Service to work closely in the Govt3 programme with the Ministry for the Environment. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Is there is any prospect that the adoption of the waste strategy by Parliament could lead to a reduction in the unnecessary tabling of departmental reports answers to parliamentary questions  
Hansard 
 newspaper reports and the photocopying of material that is already available or has already been tabled? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: I live in hope. 
Mike Ward 
: What advice will the Minister provide on ongoing employer education and encouragement programmes to decrease resource use and waste production and what will the Minister do now to see that the performance of Parliament in respect of resource use and waste generation is improved? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Once again the Minister can give an opinion but she cannot comment on a department for which she is not responsible. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: As I have said I am very interested in the Parliamentary Service joining the Govt3 programme in which Government departments work through a number of issues to do with the management of waste. 
Defence Force—Project Protector and Multi-role Vessel 
11.  
RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
 to the  
Minister of Defence 
: Has he been advised of the complaint relating to Project Protector and the acquisition of the multi-role vessel made to the Office of the Ombudsmen; if so what is the nature of the complaint? 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 I am not aware of any such complaint but I am aware that agents acting for one of the interested parties that did not make the shortlist has made a complaint regarding process to the Office of the Ombudsmen. As I am not a party to that complaint I am not aware of the details. I can only suggest that the member discuss the matter with his former law firm colleague and former fellow naval reservist Mr Michael Stephens who is advising the agents who laid the complaint and who incidentally is also acting for one of the disappointed shortlisted companies. 
Richard Worth 
: Why has the Government chosen a conventional roll-on roll-off vessel that will not be able to land men and material in sea states above sea state 2 when the likely area of operation of the multi-role vessel will be an offloading requirement in the deep waters and associated swells of the Pacific—conditions far different from the millpond of sea state 2? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: The contract as signed with Tenix is compliant with the documents issued inviting tenders. 
Richard Worth 
: What is his view of the New Zealand defence officials who in analysing the tender registration bid of Hyundai the biggest shipyard in the world incorrectly recorded the capital base of Hyundai as $26 million instead of $26 billion so that Hyundai which in fact had a history of building a ship in New Zealand missed out and was not able to enter the bid round? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I will not in any way contravene the appropriate commercial processes in the tender process. I suggest the member talks to his former legal and reservist colleague on the matter. 
Racing Industry—Promotion 
12.  
CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
 to the  
Minister for Racing 
: How has the Government contributed to ensuring the New Zealand racing industry can look forward to a prosperous future? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister for Racing) 
: 
 This Government has worked hard to ensure that the racing industry has a modern statutory framework that allows racing to control its own destiny. The new Racing Act has been in force for a year and the Government has appointed a strong capable New Zealand Racing Board that has already laid the foundations for revitalising New Zealand racing. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: What has the New Zealand Racing Board achieved in its first year in office and what has been the industry’s response? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: The board has laid the foundations for growth. It has commissioned comprehensive research that will underpin various strategies for growing the industry. The board has set itself a target of increasing its financial return to racing from $79 million to $100 million per annum. 
Personal Explanations 
Civil Aviation Authority—Allegations of Telephone Taping 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety) 
: 
 I seek leave to make a personal statement in relation to allegations made in this House on Tuesday by Mr Hide that I misled this House over the matter of the taping of telephone calls. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to make a personal explanation. Is there any objection? There is. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a letter to the Speaker on this matter. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) 
Third Reading 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister of Fisheries) 
: 
 I move  
That the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) be now read a third time 
. The bill amends the Fisheries Act 1966. It provides for the introduction of scampi into the quota management system on 1 October 2004—a key recommendation of the select committee report on scampi—and corrects the general problem with the current quota allocation mechanisms identified during the process of introducing North Island eels into the quota management system. 
Members have expressed some concern regarding the new quota management area 3 and area 4A boundaries for scampi. Scampi are currently managed within 10 fishery management areas that were set in the late 1980s. As part of the process to bring scampi into the quota management system the Ministry of Fisheries sought independent scientific advice on the best future management regime for the fishery. The proposed changes are based on the strong recommendations of that advice. Scientific analysis of catch rates by-catch and scampi biology provide evidence that scampi on the Mernoo Bank and the north-west Chatham Rise are one stock and should be managed as such. Under the old boundaries that stock is split in two. The benefit of the new management boundaries provided in this bill is that I can sustainably provide more quota than under the old boundaries because I can provide for new areas to be developed. To date fishers have taken sustainable catches of scampi mainly from one small part of the two existing management areas on the Chatham Rise. We know that the habitat and populations of scampi attend across a much wider area. The new management boundaries separate out the existing stock of scampi to allow better management and provide development of the fishery particularly in the waters surrounding the Chatham Islands. 
I have yet to decide on the new total allowable commercial catches in the proposed new areas 3 and 4A. The Ministry of Fisheries is currently finalising advice to me after consulting on a proposal to increase the catch limits in the new areas 3 and 4A from their current combined total of 310 tonnes to 460 tonnes. As a result of the boundary changes if the catch limit increases are implemented the amount of Crown quota available for tender in area 3 will more than double. There is also potential for quota to be allocated to the Chatham Islands Enterprise Trust under the new boundary arrangements. The amount if any of such quota will also ultimately depend on the total allowable commercial catch set for the new area 4A. 
In closing I need to comment on the personal price a number of senior staff in the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries and later the Ministry of Fisheries have paid in the course of this long debate. It is true that the State Services Commission investigation found no substance to the serious allegations that were made against those individuals. That is of course welcome. However the personal toll on the individuals and their families of living with such accusations hanging over them must be acknowledged. I thank those staff for their professionalism and integrity. 
I commend the bill to the House. 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 As members will be quite aware there is quite a history in this House with regard to the scampi debacle if one likes. The unfortunate activities in the scampi fishery over the last decade culminated in a parliamentary select committee inquiry whereby myself my colleague David Carter Janet Mackey Clayton Cosgrove Doug Woolerton who was replaced by the Hon Winston Peters and others spent considerable time looking into those issues. We became—more than most I think—educated in the greater overview of what went on during that decade both out on the water in the different scampi management areas and behind closed doors in the business rooms of the fishing industry. 
 We also gained huge insight into what the Ministry of Fisheries—previously the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries—was up to during that time. It is interesting to note that the unfortunate incidents that unravelled in the ministry happened under a number of Governments—the Labour Government in the late 1980s the National Government in the 1990s then a Labour Government again. Fortunately we were able to form a select committee that did not have a political agenda if one likes. There were members on that committee who certainly had personal agendas but no particular party had a party political agenda. That is why that particular select committee made a whole lot of progress and we were pleased with that. 
At the same time and roughly in parallel the State Services Commission also had an inquiry into the management of the scampi fishery. It was looking at allegations of corruption against State-employed officials and it too spent a considerable amount of time looking at the management of scampi. Interestingly the two inquiries came back with similar findings although I would have to say that the State Services Commission inquiry was a lot harsher on Ministry of Fisheries officials than we were. The State Services Commission said that the Ministry of Fisheries officials had been unprofessional ad hoc and inconsistent and had little regard for fairness. That was a sad indictment on those officials at that time. We can only hope—and I am sure Mr Ewen-Street will comment on this—that they have learnt something from that. 
We also heard from a number of aggrieved fishers who had been effectively locked out of the fishery. Their names are Mr Trevor Goodship; Mr Wayne Howell and A G Cave; a third party United Fisheries; Vautier Shelf Company No 14; Mr Milton Roderique; Mr Noel McLellan; and Sealord Group—seven aggrieved fishers that we were able to identify had just cause to be in some way compensated. The committee recommended that they should receive ex gratia payments. Some members of the committee by putting their fingers in the wind came up with figures of $400000 for most of them and $900000 for Mr Trevor Goodship. Committee members said that those payments should be a minimum payment to those particular aggrieved fishers. The Government came back and said that they would be a maximum payment to those aggrieved fishers. 
The Sealord Group was left out of that list for two reasons. I gather that one was that the Labour Government felt it was too big a company to receive compensation which would be just a drop in the ocean to it so it ignored justice. Winston Peters from New Zealand First opposed it because the Sealord Group is half-owned by Asians and of course he wanted to take a racist approach. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Would you sit that junior member down and tell him he cannot use the word “racist” in this House. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: I withdraw— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Order! 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Would that member sit down and shut up while I am talking! I am entitled to make my point of order without his jumping up and down like the inexperienced novice that he is. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That has been settled. Could we please have the member’s point of order? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: He cannot make those statements— 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Now he has done it twice. If he does it a third time he should be told to leave the House. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I will be the judge of that. The member is encouraging that behaviour. I have the member’s point of order and I thank him for it. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can I have my point of order heard in silence where that member is concerned? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Absolutely! My Heatley is not to repeat that behaviour when a point of order is in progress. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: That member cannot make allegations like that. He should get up withdraw and apologise and wash his mouth out. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: I withdraw and apologise. Unfortunately Sealord Group has not seen any justice in print and certainly will not see any justice in practice and we are disappointed with that. 
However the National Party will support this bill. It is our view that scampi should come into the quota management system as soon as possible and of course this bill allows that to happen on 1 October of this year. It is our view that the scampi fishery not being in the quota management system is unsustainable simply because there is a race to catch fish. There is little regard for ensuring that fishing occurs during the time of the year when scampi are mature and there is no incentive at the moment to do so. Juvenile fish are being brought up fishing-grounds are being targeted and there is a fair degree of tension out on the water in the scampi fishing-grounds. So we support scampi coming into the quota management system and will certainly vote for the bill with that in mind. 
We also note and refer back to our concerns over the boundary changes to quota management area No. 3 and quota management area No. 4A. Members will recall that quota management area No. 3 is off the Canterbury Bight on the east coast of the South Island and quota management area No. 4A is further east around the Chatham Rise. We were concerned that that larger area quota management areas No. 3 and No. 4A had a dividing line within it and that that particular dividing line was going to be shifted well to the east. We knew that would have consequences with regard to the amount of Crown quota available for tender or available for settlement on the aggrieved fishers. That was of concern to us but what was of more concern what was the most significant and paramount concern was the fact that shifting that line may make the scampi fishery in that area less sustainable and the fish in some respects may be pillaged and the fishing-grounds damaged. We were given assurances by the Minister of Fisheries in the House—and I thank the Minister for giving those assurances—that that line was shifted for sustainability and utilisation reasons. 
We now know that there are two specific fishing-grounds in areas 3 and 4A. The line as it is now shifted in this bill—and the National Party endorses this change—splits those two fishing-grounds cleanly. That means that the take of fish can be increased and everybody is a winner. The fishery is a winner because it is being fished sustainably; the fishers with quota are winners because they are able to get more quota and improve their businesses; and of course the aggrieved fishers or others wanting to get into the scampi fishery are winners too because there is excess quota for them to purchase. We are delighted about that. 
National will be supporting this bill with that proviso. Our prime concern having worked through the other issues was always those boundaries. I would like to say that working through the scampi inquiry was an arduous process. Most of us on the select committee were focused on getting a good result and I would like to acknowledge all the members on the committee particularly the Labour Party National Party and ACT members. Others certainly pursued their own agenda but that was OK because we came out with the right result. We were not influenced in any way by others on the committee. We are delighted to see scampi going in to the quota management system this year. That accords with the wishes of the majority of those in the seafood industry who simply want to sustainably utilise the scampi fishery. 
HELEN DUNCAN (Labour) 
:  
I am pleased to have the opportunity to support this bill. The Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) is timely. It provides for the introduction of scampi into the quota management system and that really needs to happen. The Primary Production Committee has done an excellent job and we look forward to better management of our quota fisheries. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I think this is the first speech I have ever made on the issue in respect of this bill. It is a fact that for about 50 percent of the meetings I replaced my colleague Doug Woolerton on the Primary Production Committee and that was because he asked me to and because since 1986 I have taken an interest in fishing. I was the National Party’s associate spokesperson on that subject before it foolishly expelled me from its caucus on the matter of the Sealord’s deal circa October 1992. Of course National knew everything about fishing then but somebody was right and somebody was wrong and we know today who was right and who was foolishly wrong. One would not think that the National Party had handled the legislation in 1992 by the way its members talked today. But as I have always said their blood type their DNA and their fingerprints are all over this issue and their speeches display a word that begins with “h” that I cannot possibly use because it is outside the Standing Orders. 
I wish to say first of all that the Chatham Islands Enterprise Trust entitlement in the future—off shore for 450 miles—is a sound idea. Those people deserve special treatment in respect of the resources that abound their lands and we should have regard to that. 
But I want to mention also the question of the affected parties—Goodship and others. I want to tell them that though they may not know it there is one reason they are being compensated as a benchmark in fairness and that is that there was a New Zealand First presence on that committee and no member of that committee can deny it—first as to the principle of fair compensation and second as to the amount. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: The amount maybe! 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: If there is no amount set then no amount will be paid. Goodship who is bound to get $950000 and the rest who get in excess of $400000 as a benchmark owe it to one party—New Zealand First—even though they do not know it. I just wish some members would go out and tell those people disgruntled though they might be the truth. 
I want to say this. The National Party members at all times in the select committee were. as always all over the place. We found out today during the third reading that they support the bill. I saw their spokesperson Mr Heatley get up and say recently in Whangarei at the recreational fishing conference at Onerahi all sorts of statements in front of all those recreational fishers who were utterly bewildered as to first what he did not know and second what he was prepared to say. But he also said yesterday during the Committee stage that everywhere he goes amongst the industry people always tell him what a great spokesperson he is. Well name one person in the industry who thinks that boy on a man’s mission is a good spokesman when it comes to fishing! 
Darren Hughes 
: It will have to go to the Privileges Committee! 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I will get to that soon. But that is what he said. I do not know one person in the fishing industry who thinks he is a competent spokesperson yet he had the arrogance to say at Onerahi: “If you’ve got any problems come and see me.” That is what he said. I thought: “By gee they’ve become arrogant so fast and so sudden.” 
Darren Hughes 
: What does the “Great Debater” think? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Well the “Great Debater” or the “Great Communicator”— 
Darren Hughes 
: The “Great Pretender”! 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: The “Great Pretender” is never here. The “Great Debater” never debates. Once a week for about 10 minutes we see this great Leader of the Opposition and for the rest of the time— 
Darren Hughes 
: What’s his name? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: What is his name? Well the point here is where is the “Great Communicator”. Well we know where he is: dodging the House dodging accountability dodging being exposed and dodging being shown not to have the capacity to do what every Leader of the Opposition must do—take on the Government day in and day out and show some leadership. He wins all his fights by 100 yards and out there we have all those journalists and reporters saying: “Oh he’s the next Prime Minister.” Stop dreaming! One has to show—as overseas in free democracies leaders of other Opposition parties show—some leadership and the capacity to do the job that one’s caucus tells one to do. Thus far all we have got is rank plagiarism of New Zealand First policies. He reads our speeches back to us and claims that the policies are National’s. 
The National Party members were all over the place. At three different times on three different occasions with the knowledge of their leader Don Brash they alleged corruption against one of the members of the committee and they are facing serious defamation claims as a result. We will see them through to the very end. If they have any idea that TVNZ and its money and its bank will save them or save Mr David Carter or Mr Shirley they can stop dreaming about it now. One thing is protection in a defamation case and it is the protection and defence of truth. What was said was a tissue of lies—most particularly when I was not here to defend myself. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am surprised you did not bring the member to heel. It is quite incorrect to refer in the House to a matter that is before the courts in the way that the member has done particularly when he is a party to that action against another member of this House. That is grossly in breach of Standing Orders and I ask you to call him to desist. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Speaking to the point of order I point out that Mr Shirley needs to listen and pay more attention to what is going on in the House. I said that what was said was a tissue of lies. If the glove fits then wear it. But only then when he makes his complaint can he possibly have any right to bring a point of order in the way he did. If he wants me to say he is one of them then I will. But at that point of time I had not done so. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thought it was another matter that the member was calling a point of order on. There is no need to give any ruling in respect of what the Rt Hon Winston Peters is saying. Please continue. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: For the remainder of the time the National Party was all over the place. I want to ask Mr Heatley this. 
Phil Heatley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just want to give the old man a breather. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That is not a point of order. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You just heard what that member said. He is about to leave the House because he cannot defend himself. Let me say that I will be around long after he has gone. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: OK. Can we move on. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: But I want to ask the National Party and Mr Heatley this: are they prepared to tell the House today what the ownership control and direction of the Sealord’s company is? The Japanese are not known for putting up 50 percent of the money and giving the control the direction and the leadership over to someone else. Where in the world have the Japanese or any Japanese company ever done that? I tell Mr Heatley or Mr David Carter to get up and tell the House what the Sealord’s ownership control and management is and if they cannot do that they should sit down and shut up. If they cannot do that they should stop making stupid complaints born of the National Party’s ignorance. They should be the last people to talk about influence when it comes to politics; they should be the very last people to do that. I ask Mr David Carter to tell us who it was that Don Brash saw when he was abroad—in Europe in particular. 
Hon David Carter 
: I wouldn’t have a clue. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I know; he never has had a clue. But he should have a clue. He is a front-bench member of the National Party. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: He was the numbers man. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: He was the numbers man so he should tell us who Don Brash saw. Were they not the very same people who were setting out to corrupt the National Party in 1988 1989 and 1990 and who poured millions of dollars into the National Party’s coffers? I was a front-bencher and I knew. That was why I got fired. I tell Mr David Carter not to tell me that those members do not know. [ 
Interruption 
] 
I say to Mr Shirley that being fired from the National Party Cabinet is a badge of honour. Unlike Mr Shirley who would do anything to keep in office we do not. We in New Zealand First believe in principles in ethics and in doing what is right. I know that is strange territory for the ACT party whose members will do anything to survive in politics. But we in New Zealand First do not just talk about honour and principles; we act by them. That is why our party will massively hold the balance of political responsibility come 2005. When ACT has gone when the Greens have gone and when United Future and all the rest have gone there will be one party at least here to keep the industry the economy and Parliament honest and that party is New Zealand First. 
IAN EWEN-STREET (Green) 
: 
 I believe that today is a sad day for democracy. Parliament became aware of a grave injustice in the scampi industry. I believe that almost every member of the Primary Production Committee and perhaps of the House has acknowledged the grave injustice that has been perpetrated but now Parliament is proceeding to turn its back on that injustice and I do think it is a sad day. I can only ask the Government: where do people go to receive justice in this country? 
The scampi fishers were done wrong by a Government department. As a consequence they went to the High Court and they won. The ministry ignored the outcome of that High Court decision. The fishers went to the Regulations Review Committee and they got support there on the basis that they undertook to change their regulations if the court found that they had done wrong. The court did find that they had done wrong but they reneged on their undertaking to the Regulations Review Committee. The scampi fishers went to the Court of Appeal and they won a unanimous case there. The Court of Appeal found that they had been wronged. The ministry again ignored the outcome. 
The scampi fishers succeeded in initiating two inquiries. Both of those inquiries returned scathing criticisms of the ministry. But the ministry has managed to ignore the outcome of those inquiries to the extent that the chief executive officer put out a press release saying not that he was falling on his sword but that the ministry had been completely exonerated; that it had been vindicated. I think that all the members of the select committee were as amazed and as gobsmacked as I was when that came out. But Parliament has had the opportunity to right the wrongs that have been done to the people in the scampi industry. They have proved their case over and over again yet this Parliament is setting that injustice in concrete. 
I do not believe that this measure will put the scampi injustice issue to bed as the Government so sincerely hopes it will. I think that the Kiwi psyche is so attuned to a sense of fair play that people know when they have been wronged and the issue will come back to haunt this Government. I believe that some future Government of whatever colour will have to revisit scampi quota allocation because such a wrong is being done to it. This is bad legislation and I suspect that history will confirm that. The Greens oppose this bill. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
:  
The day the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) passes is the day that many people will see as the final settlement for what has been a very difficult issue. I fear that members will actually find that this is not the end of the matter at all. The saga of the scampi fishery is a long and sad one. It has been characterised by vicious litigation with fishers contesting the decisions of the ministry and being pitted one against the other as they contest what is obviously a very very valuable resource. I am also saddened to note that the case has now moved to the courts with two members of Parliament—myself being one of them—being sued by another member of Parliament. 
I became significantly involved in this issue in October 2002 when an  
Assignment 
 television programme aired and repeated the allegations that had been made in this House 6 months earlier—allegations of corruption amongst officials in the Ministry of Fisheries. 
Ian Ewen-Street 
: Who made the allegations? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: The allegations were made by none other than the Rt Hon Winston Peters. In the speech he made then he promised to table voluminous amounts of evidence in the following weeks. To my knowledge that evidence has not ever been tabled by the Rt Hon Winston Peters. After the  
Assignment 
 programme aired in October 2002 and highlighted the fact that Mr Peters had made these allegations in Parliament I and a number of other members of Parliament thought it was worthy of the Primary Production Committee instigating a significant inquiry to find our whether the allegations of corruption levelled by that member of Parliament had substance. 
As history now shows the evidence presented to the select committee during the whole of 2003 and the conclusions of that select committee satisfied us that the allegations of corruption against ministry officials had no foundation. I acknowledge the comments that the Minister the Hon David Benson-Pope made earlier when he acknowledged the effect that that continual level of allegation against some ministry officials must have had on them and their families. It must have been absolutely demoralising. 
The interesting thing is that in that select committee report we unanimously agreed that the sooner scampi was brought into the quota management system the better—and that is the reason the National Party is supporting this legislation. I might add that Mr Peters earlier said that the National Party had not maintained a consistent position on this. We supported the legislation in its first and second readings and throughout its Committee stage on Tuesday. We support it now in its third reading. I am quite happy with that level of consistency. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: What about compensation? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I am happy to move to the issue of compensation. One of the findings of the select committee was to identify a number of aggrieved fishers. The committee recommended that compensation be paid as a means of trying to rebalance some of the unfairness against them. When we called for submissions not surprisingly we received some from a number of those people who had been identified as being aggrieved fishers. They were expressing extreme frustration with the process of negotiation that was occurring with the Government. It is not appropriate for me to comment on the process that those negotiations are going through but I do take this opportunity of imploring the Government to complete this saga and negotiate in good faith. 
I refer specifically to one submission that came before the select committee from Mrs Hazel Lanauze and Mr Tuck. This was a submission that identified information that had not been available to the select committee but that had clearly been made available to the State Services Commission inquiry. The evidence made available to the State Services Commission proved that Mrs Lanauze and Mr Tuck had very very similar circumstances to most of the other aggrieved fishers we had identified. If the select committee had had the full amount of information at the time it deliberated I am sure that they would have been listed as aggrieved fishers. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why weren’t they? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Because the information was not presented to us at the time. I take this opportunity to implore the Government to also recognise the submissions of Mrs Lanauze and Mr Tuck and any others that may come to light now that further information is available. 
 I thank the committee staff whom I see in the gallery for the extreme support they gave the select committee throughout the inquiry. I add in response to an interjection from the Minister of Fisheries David Benson-Pope that his suggestion that this issue spans but one Government the National Government of the 1990s is not correct. This is a saga that began in the 1980s continued through the 1990s and has continued through the early part of the 2000s. It is interesting to see in the House today the Hon Ken Shirley who was the Minister of Fisheries under the Labour Government in the 1980s. 
The Minister ought to take note that the select committee was mindful of the fact that this saga spread over a number of Governments. There was the opportunity for the select committee members to attempt to play politics with the issue. The select committee members unanimously stood well above that. I say to Mr Benson-Pope that they did not want to play politics with this issue. They worked extremely hard over the period of the select committee hearing and through the deliberations to present a report that the Government has now accepted and which has gone a long way towards getting the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) before the House and this issue towards finality. 
In the closing minutes I will comment on the issue regarding the boundary changes of the quota management areas. The committee was worried at the time about the boundary changes that were proposed to the committee because we were unaware of what the ultimate effect may be on some of the fishers who had catch history and on the headroom that may have then been available to some of those who had not had the ability to enter into the fishery. The information that was provided to the select committee by the officials was contradictory. The first information suggested that the change of boundaries would greatly lessen the amount of headroom available for the Crown. Information that became available after the select committee had completed its work and deliberations now suggests that there will be more headroom available. On that basis the National Party will now accept the boundary changes. 
This has been a long and arduous saga of mismanagement and misjudgment by the ministry. Hopefully by passing this legislation today we will see an end of these issues of unfairness and mismanagement. I sadly think that that will probably not be the case. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I seek leave to table two documents. The first is the Lanauze and Tuck submission made to the States Services Commission inquiry well over a full year after the select committee had conducted its inquiry. The second document is my submission to the committee on what was defined as the “X Case” which Mr Carter promptly refused to investigate. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. 
Documents not tabled. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the  
Hansard 
 of April 2002 when Mr Peters raised the allegations of corruption against the Ministry of Fisheries. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am not certain whether you ruled in my favour in respect of the leave I sought. The critical part of my documentation is that it provides all the evidence of corruption anyone would ever want to see but the chairperson of the Primary Production Committee refused to investigate it. 
Debate interrupted. 
Amended answers to Oral Questions 
Question No. 9 to Minister 3 August 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister of Youth Affairs) 
: 
 I seek leave to correct part of an answer that the Hon Phil Goff gave when answering a question in the House on my behalf on Tuesday 3 August relating to the number of young people who had completed the Specialist Youth Service Corps programme. The wrong answer was given with regard to numbers. The answer given that 86 young people had completed the programme related to the 2002-03 year not the 2003-04 year. In addition a further 146 young people completed the programme in 2003-04. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Whip—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This issue was raised during question time today—that the inaccurate answers we are consistently getting from Ministers— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Is the member speaking to the point of order? 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: I am speaking to the point of order. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: What point of order? 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: The one raised by Mr Tamihere. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That has been dealt with. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is a new point of order. We have already had discussion today about members’ concerns over Ministers giving false information inadvertently perhaps then coming down to the House to correct it. The expectation of members is that it is corrected at the first opportunity. My point is that in this instance Mr Goff was in the House during question time. He could have corrected it himself at that time over an hour ago. But here we have the Minister coming down to the House much later when there is not the same interest or attendance and trying to slip it in on the quiet as it were. I think that does need to be watched. Mr Goff should have corrected that answer during question time earlier this afternoon. 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 Mr Goff was answering on behalf of Mr Tamihere so the answer was Mr Tamihere’s responsibility; and the Minister has just assured me that when the information came to his attention he immediately came down to the House and corrected the answer. It is quite within the Standing Orders. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Yes that is the correct position. I do not intend for this to be pursued any further. 
Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) 
Third Reading 
Debate resumed. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
: 
 In speaking to this third reading debate I can advise the House that the ACT party will be supporting this bill which brings scampi on to the quota management system. It is with some concern that we have come to that position and I would like to share with the House our reasoning for it. 
We have had a very untidy situation with regard to scampi allocation and the management of it and moving it on to quota. We fervently believe in property rights. Indeed that is why back in 1986 the individual transferable quota system was legislated—to bring fisheries on to a quota management system whereby there was a clear property right that was transferable. We moved away from the administrative allocation model based on permitting and all the problems associated with that—the politicisation and the lobbying that goes with it. We had had decades of that and that has been the experience of countries all around the world that base fisheries management on administrative allocations and permitting. So in principle the individual transferable quota system is very good and I believe that the big picture is that it has worked very well in this country relative to other jurisdictions. 
The problem is that it took too long to bring scampi on to the quota management system. I well recall that when I was the Minister of Fisheries scampi was a new fishery. It was in a discovery mode. I always envisaged that within a very short space of time—perhaps 1 or 2 years at most—it would be brought on to the quota management system. In fact a decade or more ticked by and we have seen—and indeed the reports on this fishery have shown—the failures of the administrative allocation model. 
All the inequities and arguments around the margins are a function of this Government’s trying to do this sort of thing through Government departments and administrative allocation rather than giving a clear property right. ACT feels there have been gross injustices and with the effluxion of time those injustices have been greatly exacerbated as they always are. There is always a debate in fisheries allocation as to whether it should be done on open tender or on catch history and if it is done on catch history what years should be selected as the base. There are always those at the margin those who are disadvantaged those who had a broken leg in the year that was retrospectively chosen to be the catch history reference point so gross injustices occur. But I think it would be fair to say in respect of scampi that there was gross mismanagement—though no corruption as alleged by Mr Peters. A major investigation showed no corruption but rather incompetence and mismanagement. I do not want to overstate that because I know the enormous difficulty associated with trying year after year to run a permitting system. There are regional variations inconsistent policies and personnel changes. That is one of the inherent difficulties of doing an administrative allocation with a property right such as the right to harvest. 
Here we are finally bringing scampi into the quota management system and ACT supports that. We argued at the Committee stage for the introduction of a mechanism that could within the legislation address some of the injustices inherent in the system. We regret that they really have not been provided for in an adequate way. 
Mr Carter made some interesting comments. He referred to the allegations of corruption made by the Rt Hon Winston Peters in this House way back in April 2002. But did he produce any evidence? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Yes I did. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: Not a jot. He was going to bring voluminous evidence as at the wine-box inquiry. This was to be the “fish box”—it was to have been bigger than the wine box. Did we see anything? No. Mr Carter rightly chaired a select committee. Parliament did the responsible thing and set up a select committee inquiry under the Hon David Carter’s chairmanship. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. A member is required to remain somewhat within the debate. I took the evidence to the select committee. I have tabled it twice today— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: We will continue. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: The promised fish box did not contain even a spotty. There was nothing in it absolutely nothing. Not even one scampi or shrimp was in that great fish box of voluminous evidence that was to be brought to the select committee inquiry. The New Zealand First spokesperson on fisheries Mr Woolerton was that party’s representative on the committee. 
Edwin Perry 
: Good man! 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: Well he is a quiet man. I understand that he is the president of the party also. He is very quiet in that role too. All of a sudden Mr Peters put himself on that committee because he wanted the opportunity to present that fish box of evidence. But did he do that? Not a bit of it. What did he first concentrate on? I am informed that his first efforts went into narrowing the terms of reference. He argued to get them as minimal as possible. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is not the report back from the select committee the second reading debate or the Committee stage of the bill; it is the third reading. The member is required to give a third reading speech and he is inviting us to spend 10 minutes listening to his ignorance about the issues. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member for raising that but Mr Shirley is dealing with the exact same issues that he did in his speech. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: I can certainly understand the member’s discomfort on this issue. I think it is evident to all. Having narrowed the terms of reference we still did not see the fish box of voluminous evidence. It simply was not presented. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Mr Shirley was not a member of the committee—[ 
Interruption 
] The member was never there. He is never at any committee. He is not even sitting down while I am making a point of order. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I think these are debating matters. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I am trying to make a point of order Mr Speaker so I ask that you request Mr Shirley to sit down. Thank you very much. As quickly as possible— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I am trying to decide whether there is a point of order. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: My point of order is that no member of the select committee will allege that I narrowed down its terms of reference. It was never in my powers and it was never in my authority. The member is talking absolute drivel that has no part in a third reading debate. [ 
Interruption 
]. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: There is a point of order under way. There will be no cross-chat. That was not a point of order; it is a debating matter. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: I have just been corrected— 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek your advice. As a member who sat on that committee I say that it would appear that Mr Shirley may be transgressing into issues that were deliberated on and are therefore confidential to that committee. I just ask you to be mindful of that. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I think even Mr Cosgrove knows that it is all out in the open now. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: I am grateful to Mr Heatley who did sit on that committee and play a very active role on it because he has just corrected me. It was not a fish box of voluminous evidence at all; it was a brown paper bag I am told. Anyway having made all those allegations— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Now the very objection that Mr Shirley raised in respect of a matter he said was sub judice he has gone to the heart of and it is the reason why I am suing him for millions. So Mr Shirley should tell the jury and not come here and tell lies. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That also is not a point of order. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I certainly did not refer to any court case but the member just has and I draw your attention to Standing Order 111—as I did earlier—which specifically states that a member may not refer to a matter that is before a court. I drew it to your attention earlier. We have just seen an absolute breach of that Standing Order and I certainly made no reference to any action in any court. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The member may raise that but it is for me to decide whether those issues can be raised or discussed. I am quite happy that they were discussed or raised in the way they were. I see no danger whatsoever of those words prejudicing the trial or whatever is under way. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: That is quite right I did not serve on that select committee; the ACT member Gerry Eckhoff did. However unlike the New Zealand First Party ACT members liaise closely with each other. We caucus and tell each other what is happening at select committees. We know what the others are doing particularly on key issues and numerous parties have referred me to the fact Mr Peters put a lot of effort into narrowing the terms of reference of that select committee. It focused his mind. He was almost obsessed with narrowing the terms of reference. Then we learnt that he had engaged one Ross Meurant who is a former member of Parliament and a former colleague of Mr Peters. He actually engaged him and paid for him out of the Parliamentary Service’s taxpayers’ money to have him as an adviser and consultant in his office here in Parliament. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Sorry you’re wrong there! 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: I checked on that. What we also found was that at the same time Mr Meurant was in the employ and commission of Simunovich Fisheries. Now there is nothing wrong with that in itself but it does start to raise various questions does it not? We know that various other things have been alleged such as when Mr Meurant’s former partner Yvonne Dossetter made all sorts of allegations about brown paper bags. I am not sure whether she was referring to the voluminous evidence in the brown paper bags—or perhaps something else was in the brown paper bags. Whatever was in those bags perhaps Mr Peters is in the best position to know. Perhaps he knows what was in the brown paper bags. Was it this missing voluminous evidence that has never been brought to the House and never been before the select committee? It is an extraordinary saga and the House wants an answer. 
The key thing is that finally scampi is moving into the quota management system. It is appropriate that it does so and the ACT party will be supporting that. 
JANET MACKEY (Labour—East Coast) 
: 
 That speech probably goes some distance to explaining why politicians have the public confidence rating they have—somewhere down below that of used-car salesmen. Having talked about the importance of this valuable fishery coming into the quota management system to then use one’s speech time for petty point-scoring and a number of inaccurate recollections about a committee one never attended seems to me to be extraordinary. Certainly I have no recollection of some of the events Mr Shirley alluded to in his speech and I think it is unfortunate for members to waste the House’s time with personal point-scoring. It is obvious that an election is on the horizon. 
To see scampi finally going into the quota management system is something that brings a great deal of relief to any members of this Parliament or of previous Parliaments who have engaged with the ministry or the industry over this valuable fishery. The quota system is we all accept an effective management tool when looking at issues of the sustainability and management of a fishery. 
Probably the most important thing I would like to say at this stage is that the industry itself has an extraordinary notion about having an absolute right to own and be paid for every fish in the ocean. When the industry starts from the principle that it owns the fish it will always be very very difficult to come up with a fair and just allocation model. In consequence of that when the quota management system was introduced to replace permitting as a preferred management model it was understood that there would be some unfairness. As Mr Shirley pointed out there will always be the fisher who stopped fishing just before the catch history years the fisher who was unwell over those years and the fisher whose wife was sick so took a year off to spend time with his children. There will always be those cases with that management model. 
Having said that I consider that there is perhaps in this scampi industry a greater number of examples of unfairness mismanagement and inconsistency than in any other fishery. I think that in the course of the inquiry into this scampi fishery when allegations were flying quicker than fishhooks about every player in the industry it became very clear that a number of people had suffered irreparable damage as a result of the failure of successive ministries to manage the fishery well and fairly. 
Some comment has been made today about the decision resulting from the inquiry to allocate some reparation to those fishers who we considered had suffered irreparable damage. I notice that Mr Peters is claiming full credit for that and is certainly advising the industry that he was solely responsible for it. That is one of the things about Parliament is it not? There is never much room on the moral high ground; it is always very overcrowded. 
 I commend all members of the Primary Production Committee. They worked quite hard to come up with some way of identifying those fishers who at the hands of the ministry had been deprived of what they should and would have had. We could not give them quota; we would have had to change the Act in order to do that. But in the case of Mr Goodship and a handful of others we were able to ensure that the years they spent fishing—or going into the ministry and filing permits that never got processed—were not entirely wasted. 
With regard to the fishing company that we suggested had been treated unfairly but that had received no financial reparation I say that the reason for that on the part of some members of the committee was not the ownership or management structure of the company but the fact that it is a very big and successful fishing company and shows absolutely no scars from its engagement in the scampi industry. It has gone on to become a very wealthy and successful company whereas others of the smaller fishers never had the opportunity to get on their boats and go out to catch scampi. 
It is with great pleasure therefore that we see scampi going into the quota management system. The fishery industry is a litigious one. There will always be allegations of unfairness flying around when something worth millions of dollars is given away for nothing. People will always perceive that as being unfair. But as a New Zealander who believes that the fish in the ocean belong to New Zealanders and not to people who have been out there fishing I say that I have some confidence as a result of the passing of this legislation that we will see greater fairness in the industry and that we can entrust to the ministry some responsibility for the sustainability of what is a very valuable resource to New Zealanders. 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I came to the House to speak on the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) but I am a little shell-shocked. In fact I was not in the country when most of the discussions and controversy around the scampi fishery took place so I find myself at somewhat of a disadvantage. I might have to confine myself to speaking about the bill—which will be quite a novel experience for members given the contributions I have heard today. The exception of course is Janet Mackey. I thought she gave good counsel to the House which was that we should concentrate on the matters in hand. 
I also have to declare that I was not a member of the Primary Production Committee so I find myself very much at a disadvantage. But as my whips indicated that I should request the call I will attempt to do my best. 
I note that the bill legislates scampi—which as I have now learnt is Norwegian lobster—into the quota management system by 1 October 2004. National supports this legislation. Notwithstanding some of the allegations that have been made we have supported the bill right from the outset—through the first and the second readings and through the Committee stage in which I did take an active part. I wonder now having listened to the discussion that I see has raged for over 2 years why we have had to rush this bill through the House at the last moment. Barely 9 sitting days ago the House was in urgency yet it was not included in the urgency motion. 
Now there is a rush to have the bill enacted by 1 October. In my judgment that will cause some procedural problems for those fishers who when they receive their quota do not agree with it and want to appeal. They will have only 20 working days to do that and given that this is 5 August and the legislation has not yet received its royal assent it appears that the process is procedurally unsound and unfair. 
Through the Committee stage I raised those questions with the Minister and he seemed unwilling or unable to give me any answers. I suspect that it was probably that he was unable given his nervous twitch and his floundering around when looking for advice from his officials—who as is their wont left him to squiggle like a scampi out of water. 
Throughout the protracted negotiation and controversy that has surrounded this legislation there has been immense pressure applied to members of the select committee. If it were not for the outstanding chairmanship of David Carter who was ably supported by Phil Heatley I do not think that we would have divined a path through the legislation as well as we have. To be fair I am also told that significant contributions were made by Janet Mackey and Clayton Cosgrove but I did not hear any positive affirmations on behalf of New Zealand First members. 
In fact given the current circumstances I reflect that it was strange that through the whole Committee stage New Zealand First members took not two not one but no calls whatsoever. It appears to me that someone must have thought there would be cameras in the House today though because they have come to the House and preened and talked. They have made a lot of noise but there has not appeared to be a lot of substance. I observed Mr Assistant Speaker Simich that during some of those discussions you were trying to draw the members’ attention back to the narrow subject of the debate. I think you did an outstanding job on that basis. 
In reflecting on my favourite subject of this fisheries Minister I have to say that the work of the select committee was made much harder pretty much by his inexperience—and to be fair by his limited commercial ability. Here is a man who through no fault of his own—he is new to the job and inexperienced—is driven by his officials who are only too willing to give him advice in order for him to try to pick up some lost ground. But again the committee owes a great debt to Mr Carter’s experience because he saw to their divining a path through what was otherwise a very tricky process. 
One of the sticking points for National related to the boundary changes to quota management areas 3 and 4. We wanted to know what was driving that decision. I hate to harp on it again but—I am sorry—I think it is probably the inexperience of the Minister that caused some of those problems. He really did not know why those changes were being suggested and steadfastly refused to take a call in the Committee stage to answer my questions. I have to say that at one stage he did call out that the reason was that his officials had told him so and that we should get off his back and accept that what he was being told was legitimate. But he was asking us to accept advice from a ministry that had been exposed by a State Services Commission inquiry as inadequate inconsistent ad hoc and unprofessional. The best thing he could do by way of answer to my questions was to mumble under his breath that we should just listen to his officials. 
Now I take no great pleasure at all in exposing this Minister’s limitations and to prove that I am not gilding the lily with regard to the Minister and his ministry’s performance I tell members that none other than a former Prime Minister of this country Sir Geoffrey Palmer wrote to me expressing his concern about the ministry. Among other things— 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I got a letter too. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: That is amazing. He must have sorted out a couple of people who he thought would be prepared to stand up and tell the truth because amongst other things he said this to me— 
Hon David Carter 
: He sent that letter to everyone because he gets paid per letter. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: I do not believe that for a moment. I am sure he just sorted me out—and Mr Shirley. Now this is what he had to say: “Under the bill scampi fishers will be allocated quota on the basis of how much they caught in the ‘quota-earning years’ beginning 1 October 1990 and ending 30 September 1992.” There is no great difficulty with that. “Since the bill was introduced the report of the reviewers appointed by the State Services Commission on an inquiry into the fisheries management of the scampi fishery has been made available. The state of public affairs reported by the inquiry should be of grave concern to every MP. The State Services Commission report confirms there was mismanagement by the ministry and there was unfair and unreasonable treatment of the fishers.” 
I do not want to read out all this letter but the other pertinent point is this: “The injustice that was the subject of the report to the State Services Commissioner has also been dealt with by the courts which found that the actions of the ministry have been unlawful but so far there has been no disposition to re-examine the basis upon which the quota will be allocated. When it comes to injustice”—and this is the important part—“it is the putting right that counts.” 
 So we are getting conflicting opinions. For example the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research has been saying there is no justifiable reason why we should change the quota management areas off the Southland coast or words to that effect. It stated: “Moving boundaries will in fact be arbitrary.” 
I will allow that new information can come to hand. Thankfully through the outstanding efforts of Phil Heatley new information was enticed out of that tight-lipped Minister. The tragedy of it all is that had he made that advice available earlier we would not have had to sit through a protracted select committee stage. Again I suppose it goes back to inexperience or a lack of capability. 
I conclude by saying that had it not been for that tight-lipped Minister the select committee process would not have been protracted. We did not take any pleasure in having to drag the process out until we got the answers we all required. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I suspect after that less than lucid contribution that all members of the Primary Production Committee—including the chair Mr David Carter I suspect but I will not put him on the spot to make a public admission—are thankful that Mr Connell never set foot in that committee at all. I thank the Lord above that he was not a member of that committee. If he had been he would know that we are not rushing this bill through the House with undue haste. If Mr Connell could read past the large title and the large print of the bill he would know that the reason the bill has to be enacted by 1 October is simply that it is being gazetted for scampi to go into the quota management system by that due date. 
So instead of these sorts of crocodile tears and puffery to try to pad out a speech as Mr Connell does I suggest that he talk to Mr Carter. I agree with one thing that Mr Connell said: I believe that Mr Carter did make a very sound contribution as chair. I suggest that Mr Connell takes a lesson from a senior colleague and has a wee chat before he stands up and makes a complete fool—I could use another word but that word will do—of himself. 
Before I get into the bill I will also say to Mr Shirley that one thing about this committee—and I said it last week—is that it is a non-partisan committee where there is a high degree of cooperation between Opposition and Government parties and between cross-bench parties. There was a high degree of cooperation over this whole report to the point that we were unanimous as a committee in every way except one small way which I will come to in a moment. I acknowledge the contribution made by Mr Eckhoff. However unlike Mr Eckhoff Mr Shirley—and one can always rely on the ACT party to do this—took an opportunity to roll around in the muck like some sort of animal and to play politics with this issue. I will give him the same advice that I gave Mr Connell—and perhaps he may want to talk to his colleague Mr Eckhoff— 
Brian Connell 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is very unlike me to time this member’s speeches although they do drag on but he is 3 minutes on and has not mentioned the bill yet. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I shall judge relevance. I thank the member for raising that. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I think I have mentioned the bill. I tell Mr Shirley again that this very non-partisan and very important inquiry should not be trivialised. The truth about the inquiry as it pertained to the bill was that there were a number of sideshows. Again I congratulate members on both sides who managed to navigate through those sideshows and through the muck to get on with the business. 
I endorse the bill bringing scampi into the quota management system. If we look at how it links with the scampi report there are some very heavy-duty correlations. As has been mentioned these events happened over 10 years ago and I endorse Mr Carter’s point when he said that we should not play politics with this issue because it happened over a number of administrations. The question of the lack of or level of ministerial oversight by whoever was the Minister at the time in all those administrations does arise in respect of how the issues of mismanagement and incompetence were dealt with. The then Ministers officials and others were questioned over 10 years ago and they were pretty balanced in their view. However the thing the committee did struggle with was that if the then Ministers sitting in the chair over 10 years ago received representations and letters one would have thought that they would perhaps have taken a greater interest in the issue. I recall questioning the officials on that. At one point—and I am sure that the transcript will verify this—they said they had not gone to the then Ministers often because it was all a bit technical. Historically I do not think that was acceptable from the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries. Any politician who keeps getting representations on issues knows that there is a problem. When politicians are told the problem is fixed and they still keep getting representations then obviously the fixtures have not stuck. 
I also say just to correct the record that it is true that the committee was unanimous—and I acknowledge New Zealand First—on its recommendation to compensate. Where the committee was not unanimous and where New Zealand First did support the Government was in respect of naming a dollar amount for compensation. I acknowledge the National Party’s point that we were split on that. I think it was the only issue we were split on. However I tell Mr Heatley who made a pretty silly comment about members throwing their fingers in the air and picking dollar figures that I acknowledge that there was some analysis done to arrive at the figures. The objective was to try to provide some safeguards and give submitters some level of comfort as they negotiated with the ministry officials. Some submitters had been there a decade ago as this happened and some submitters acknowledged that they did not have confidence in some officials. I think the committee supported the naming of dollar amounts to try to lift that level of comfort. 
It is critical that we get scampi into the quota management system through this bill. Had the fishery continued on in the sort of haphazard way it was operating where fishers were just catching ad infinitum we had scientific evidence that suggested that the fishery would be under threat. 
There are some big issues that will be dealt with through this bill. As has been mentioned by members the biggest issue is that of unfairness. I told Mr Ewen-Street last week that I did not accept his view that somehow this Parliament or the committee has continued to perpetrate or somehow compound an injustice. The committee deals with—as Parliament does being the highest court in the land—evidence placed before it. That evidence did not substantiate allegations of corruption either with the ministry or players within the industry. It did not substantiate that. As I said in my previous speech I am sure that it would be accurate to say that members had various gut feelings about particular issues. Unfortunately even though we may agree with gut feelings decisions cannot be made based on gut feelings; they have to be made based on the evidence that is put forward to the committee. So no allegations were substantiated in respect of corruption. But it is an absolute truth that we did establish gross mismanagement gross incompetence and obstruction on the part of the then Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries as the scampi fishery was administered. What flowed from that was that certain fishers were advantaged and certain fishers were not. I hope that what comes out of this report is some correction to that. 
I also say that because those unfairnesses and that mismanagement were identified it led to erosion in the confidence the industry showed in the then ministry. If anything is to come out of this inquiry I hope that not only those fishers who were impacted on get some help but secondly that we can somehow build back the integrity and the confidence in the ministry. I quote from the report on the inquiry into the administration and management of the scampi fishery which states: “We”—that is the select committee—“consider that there are real lessons in all this for any government agency that is responsible for the management of a valuable public resource. If a government agency acts in a way that is found to be unfair or unlawful and does not redress the situation transparently and substantively then the honesty and integrity of the organisation is called into question.” I hope that what flows from that report and of course the bill is that we can now right some wrongs and some unfairnesses and also start to build back the integrity and credibility of that ministry. After all the Government did agree to this inquiry and rightly so. The then Minister Pete Hodgson and the committee members did endorse the inquiry. The Opposition parties and Government worked together in the hope that we could clean up a decade of mess. 
I think that this matter goes beyond politics. As I recall some of the submitters to the committee and some of the officials to be tactful it saddens me to say that they were less than helpful at times. I think other committee members would share that view. But I now say as I did in my previous speech that it is time to build back. I acknowledge Mr Carter’s point about litigation in respect of players. I say to the industry that now is the time to get out of the court and back in the boat to start to fish and to continue to invest in and develop the fishery industry. 
To conclude I say to the ministry that now is the time to ensure it builds back the credibility that has been lost through some years of mismanagement. I endorse the bill. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The debate on the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) has at times been quite lively and comment has been made that a number of members have not spoken in a way that is relevant to the issue before the House. We know that debate should be relevant to the motion before the House and the motion is that this bill be read a third time. In my view all speeches made by members have in some way been relevant to the motion before the House albeit in some cases the connection was rather tenuous. I thank all members for their contribution. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) be now read a third time. 
Ayes 107 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Bill read a third time. 
Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 3) 
First Reading 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister for ACC 
: I move  
That the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 3) be now read a first time. 
 At the moment I intend to move that the Health Committee consider the bill. 
Over 3 years ago the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Bill was introduced. This became the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Act which provides a fair and sustainable scheme for minimising both the overall incidence and the impact of injury in the community. One of the key goals of the Act is make the scheme more responsive to the needs of claimants. This amendment bill continues to progress this goal principally through changes to the existing medical misadventure provisions. 
Following the introduction of the Act a major review of the medical misadventure provisions was undertaken. A new category of treatment injury was proposed to replace the existing medical misadventure provisions. The primary purpose of this bill is to implement those changes. The new category will remove the requirement to find fault as is the case with some claimants for medical misadventure or to prove that a medical injury is rare and severe as is the case with other claims for medical misadventure before a patient is entitled to accident compensation cover. This approach is more consistent with the no-fault nature of the scheme. As a result of these changes more people will be eligible for cover and outcomes for claimants will be considerably improved. 
The bill also makes changes to the Accident Compensation Corporation’s reporting provisions for treatment of injury. The aim of these changes is to build a partnership between the Accident Compensation Corporation and the health sector that moves away from the punitive system of finding fault in reporting medical misadventure cover decisions and encourages learning initiatives when things go wrong while still protecting public safety. This partnership will gain the cooperation of the health sector to participate in the claims process which will aid fairer outcomes for claimants. 
Currently the Accident Compensation Corporation has a legislative requirement to report medical error to the relevant professional body and to the Health and Disability Commissioner. This will no longer be required under the new provisions. Instead the Accident Compensation Corporation will report information to the relevant professional body if it considers that there could be a risk of harm to the public. This is consistent with recent changes introduced by the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003. The Accident Compensation Corporation will also be required to inform claimants of the role of the Health and Disability Commissioner in investigating complaints and the standard of care provided. 
It should be noted that the new definition of “treatment injury” will not cover all medical injuries. Injuries that are an anticipated or necessary part or consequence of treatment such as surgical incision and those that result from a patient’s underlying health condition will not be covered; nor will there be cover just because the desired results were not achieved. 
These changes are the result of an excellent consultation review in which the Government worked in partnership with key stakeholders and with the public. I would like to take this opportunity to thank my colleague Lianne Dalziel for her work in setting up this review. The review was a three-stage process beginning with the discussion of the issues with stakeholder groups then public consultation on the issues and possible solutions followed by further consultation with stakeholder groups as a result of the feedback from submissions on the options for change. As a result there is wide consensus held on the direction that the new provisions provide from almost all those involved in the process including health practitioners medico-legal experts claimants and others. 
The bill also includes a number of secondary issues operational improvements and technical changes aimed at making the scheme more responsive to the needs of claimants. For example the bill provides the Accident Compensation Corporation with the discretion to provide certain rehabilitation entitlements such as for the payment of attendant care for a claimant who is overseas and requires care beyond the 28 days provided in the legislation. The bill also provides fairer methods for calculating weekly compensation for people who move into self-employment by factoring into the calculation income from other work undertaken during the income year. 
The bill builds on the framework provided by the existing legislation providing a fair comprehensive and equitable accident compensation scheme that is responsive to the needs of claimants while maintaining a responsible approach to fiscal and levy costs. The Government is committed to providing strong public services. Creating a fair and simple accident compensation scheme that reduces the incidence and impact of personal injury is our overall goal. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 National will support this bill but with considerable reservations both regarding the substance of the bill which is basically about medical misadventure and regarding some of the miscellaneous additions the Minister has mustered into this amendment. National does remain deeply and legitimately concerned that under this Labour Government the Accident Compensation Corporation is a State-run monopoly that provides little choice. By its very nature where there is no individual risk rating it tends to conceal real incentives and to conceal real problems. I have heard from many many upset constituents over the last few years that they do not have the right to sue in New Zealand apart of course from in the area of gross negligence where clearly it is right and proper for that right to be retained. 
National has supported a no-fault system in New Zealand since 1974 largely because it recognises the huge practical problems that occurred when claims relating to accidents went through the courts. Back in 1974 it was recognised that delays would often take years and then at the end of that time only a small proportion of claimants would in actual fact be compensated. Even in modern-day Boston it is said that only 5 percent of accident claimants at the end of a long trail are indeed compensated. The average time taken is usually 5 years and the compensation itself is hugely distorted by very high figures which cause the insurance premiums to be very high in the US. 
But I am concerned that the Government’s review which was carried out over 2 years although wide did not consult the private sector. It certainly did not consult the New Zealand Insurance Council or individual insurers such as QBE. There was as I say wide agreement about this review which identified the following. Firstly the medical mishap criteria are arbitrary often bearing little relation to the circumstances of the patient and resulting in claimants unfairly missing out on cover. Secondly the medical error criteria require it to be established that an individual practitioner or organisation is at fault which is clearly at odds with a no-fault system. There are some obvious anomalies with regard to that. For instance in my practice if I had snipped a ureter by mistake while carrying out a hysterectomy and if it was regarded as a rare and severe event with an incidence of less than 1 percent then the patient would be compensated. If however an individual had an unfortunate experience that occurred more than 1 percent of times then that person would not be compensated because it would not be deemed to be rare and severe. Clearly that is quite an anomaly and it should be sorted out. 
I note that the review of the medical misadventure provisions noted that the accident compensation cover decision and the requirement that the Accident Compensation Corporation must report individual practitioners involved in accepted medical error claims as well as patterns of medical mishap claims to the relevant registration authority results in health practitioners’ reluctance to participate in the claim process. That is of huge practical importance as well. The long delays with the process and the stress both on the claimant and on the practitioner is enormous and can sometimes be very negative. However it is hugely important if this process is to be put in place that individual practitioners do take responsibility for their shortcomings and that a process is in place to allow a free and frank discussion of adverse incidents—of how they can be prevented in the future and of how processes at all levels could be improved. It is absolutely necessary both on behalf of the public and on behalf of health practitioners to participate in continuous quality assurance programmes to aspire to best-practice guidelines and for provider organisations to develop accreditation programmes. Undoubtedly the reputation of professional providers depends on them fully participating in such programmes. Not to do so will earn public mistrust and disrespect. 
I also note that the reporting requirements similarly move the Accident Compensation Corporation from having a fault-finding role to one that captures information for the injury prevention purpose of the accident compensation scheme and therefore aligns the role of the corporation with its orientation and expertise. If there is a determination by the Accident Compensation Corporation that there is a risk of harm to the public the corporation will be required to report that risk and other relevant information to the person or authority with responsibility for safety in that area. That is a significant change. Again I say it is absolutely vital that health professionals move proactively to demonstrate that their organisations take the provision of the highest-quality services extremely seriously and that they act quickly to rectify faults when they are identified. I note that “treatment injury” itself will not cover injuries that are anticipated as part of or as a consequence of treatment such as a surgical incision. But there will be a big grey area there. Any practising surgeon will know that all sorts of things can happen to surgical incisions and there will be questions as to whether they were a treatment incident or whether they were a part of the normal process. There will be disputes and that is to be predicted. 
It is of concern that the Government has provided no impact statement in this bill. I learnt in the select committee that this legislation is likely to cost about $10 million to the public in terms of increased levies. I think it is quite appalling that the Labour Government has failed to bring in an estimation of that cost. I believe that the one it did provide to me is likely to be unreliable. It is hugely important that the Government faces up to the reality of what this significant bill will cost the Accident Compensation Corporation. Right now the medical misadventure account covers injuries from any unexpected outcomes of medical or surgical procedures that were properly carried out and it is funded from the earners and the non-earners accounts. The levy costs in total about $106 million and the claims liability is about $383 million. It is important that those figures are kept in mind. I note the way that the sponsor of this bill the Hon Ruth Dyson has absolutely omitted to include the financial aspects of this bill which are all-important. The accident compensation scheme is hugely costly to New Zealand—in the order of over $2 billion. Yet the Minister says that these changes will cost only $10 million. The cost of accident compensation is extremely important. It is also important to realise that 70 percent of treatments are carried out by public providers and therefore increased levies will fall on the providers in district health boards as well as on those in private practice. 
It is also to be remembered that it is the patient who has the accident and in a private individual situation patients would be individually risk rated. But at the same time the doctor could be sued through the malpractice system. 
LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 Nothing could make me happier than to take a very brief call in this debate to welcome the introduction of the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 3). As a former Minister for ACC I was able to begin a process that has now ended up with the bill that is in front of the House today. The process I began was to establish a working-party to look at the issue of medical misadventure. For the brief period that I was the Minister I was deeply concerned to try to address an anomaly that had bothered me for a number of years. Bill Birch of course was a significant distraction to the issues of accident compensation in the 1990s when he set about destroying our accident compensation scheme with the 1991 amendments— 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: On top of many other things. 
LIANNE DALZIEL 
: On top of many other things as my colleague points out. But also in addition the previous Government decided to privatise big chunks of accident compensation. So we have had the opportunity to restore accident compensation to the public system that it was before the 1990s and to ensure that New Zealanders would benefit as they have from having a public accident compensation scheme. The public scheme has protected ordinary New Zealanders from the dramatically increased cost of insurance premiums all around the world since the events of September 11. This country has been protected from those increases because this Government has made sure that we have a public scheme that works in the interests of all people. 
This legislation will get rid of an anomaly that has bothered me and other members of the Labour Party for a long time. We will have a scheme in place to ensure that when an injury results from medical treatment people are treated in the same way as they would be treated if their particular injury had occurred in any other circumstance. If the injury occurs in a hospital setting at the general practitioner’s rooms or when people are being treated by a registered health professional they have to prove that either the health professional was at fault—and this is in a no-fault scheme—or the condition or the injury that arose as a result of the medical treatment was both rare and severe. It had to meet one of the two tests—either that there was fault or that the result was rare or severe. The difficulty with that particular set of tests is that a number of people who suffered their injuries as a result of medical treatment have had to go through a very in-depth process of either showing that their medical professional was at fault or showing that what happened to them was both rare and severe. Even if something dreadful had happened if it was relatively common it was something that they had to carry as their own risk. Yet somebody who gets behind the wheel of a car without putting on the seatbelt is entitled to have all of his or her treatment costs met even though that person knows the risk is that the extent of any injury will be far greater than if he or she had put on the seatbelt. Why was medical misadventure singled out in that way? I still have not heard a good enough reason for that. 
I am very pleased to see this bill in the House today. I congratulate the Hon Ruth Dyson. I think she has done a tremendous job and continues to do a tremendous job as the best Minister for ACC that this country has ever had. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I am impressed by the former Minister’s speech. I thought she gave a very good speech and covered the facts very well. But what she did not tell the House was that 5 years ago when the Labour Party first came to power and wanted to renationalise accident compensation New Zealand First made representations to that member and the current Minister at the same time in the same room and told them to do something about medical misadventure. 
Lianne Dalziel 
: I wasn’t the Minister then. 
PETER BROWN 
: Yes I sat with the member— 
Lianne Dalziel 
: I wasn’t the Minister 5 years ago. 
PETER BROWN 
: The member sat in the same room alongside Ruth Dyson. We had a cup of coffee and I told the member how concerned New Zealand First was about not introducing medical misadventure. I tried to introduce it into the accident compensation legislation and everybody voted it down—everybody. 
Lianne Dalziel 
: I wasn’t the Minister. 
PETER BROWN 
: The member was not the Minister but she was in the loop. 
It is an absolute disgrace that it has taken 5 years for this bill to get to the House. I personally am delighted with this bill and my colleagues are very very pleased indeed. I am delighted because I have been the New Zealand First spokesperson on accident compensation for quite some time and I have had to listen to case after case of accident victims who have suffered at the hands of doctors hospitals or whatever—and it makes sad listening. I am certain that Sue Bradford will agree with me that it is not pleasant to hear the stories of people who go into hospital to get something fixed and come out a damn sight worse than when they went in. 
I am pleased to see this legislation come to pass but the honourable former Minister who had that portfolio for only 6 months said that she instigated this review 2 years ago—a review that told us exactly what we knew. It told us no more than we already knew 5 years ago. Nevertheless we are pleased that the bill has finally got to the House although we are not overly convinced it will do everything it should. We will be fighting at the select committee to make it more all-embracing. For example will it cover mental illness? Does anybody know? Will a person who is wrongly diagnosed with a mental illness be covered by this? Will the Accident Compensation Corporation front up to any sort of damage that results from or is caused by people with mental illness? It will not. Do members over there— 
Steve Chadwick 
: It’s about medical injury. 
PETER BROWN 
: It is about doctors making mistakes and if a doctor makes a mistake with a mentally ill person will this measure cover it? It will not. Should it cover it? We think it should. Given that the Government has sat on its hands for 5 long years before starting to do anything will the legislation be in any way retrospective? I think that the answer is no. 
Steve Chadwick 
: This is about medical injury. 
PETER BROWN 
: I say to the honourable member who is shouting out across the House in a most undignified manner that that is not good enough. There have been many cases in the last few years of medical misadventure. For those who do not quite understand it I point out that medical misadventure embraces medical mishap and medical error. 
Steve Chadwick 
: It tidies those up. 
PETER BROWN 
: It tidies them up but will it in any way be retrospective? 
Steve Chadwick 
: No never. 
PETER BROWN 
: No it will start on the day it starts. 
Steve Chadwick 
: A line in the sand. 
PETER BROWN 
: I thought the member had more heart more compassion. New Zealand First is a party of compassionate people. We feel for accident victims. We certainly listen to them. Can we fix this? Yes we can and we will endeavour to get a degree of fair retrospectivity into this bill. 
Sue Bradford 
: Is your party going to use that again in the next election? 
PETER BROWN 
: I think we might. Clearly it has impressed members here so I think we might. But by the time the next election arrives we might well have fixed everything. One never knows. This measure is a reasonable attempt to fix some concerns about accident compensation. We want to recognise that and give the Government some acknowledgment. The fact that it has taken 5 years for the bill to get here is by the by certainly in its books. This bill goes on to address a number of other things. 
Steve Chadwick 
: That member needs chelation therapy. 
PETER BROWN 
: I am glad the honourable member raised it! I tell her that I have spoken to a number of people who have had chelation therapy and not one of them speaks ill of the system. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Will the ACC pay for it? 
PETER BROWN 
: That is a good question. I want the Minister of Health— 
Darren Hughes 
: We could do a whip around. 
PETER BROWN 
: The members over there think it is a joke. I tell them that when people have chelation therapy for potential heart problems or whatever they do not think it is funny at all. I suggest to those members that there might be more in the system—more in chelation therapy—than that member over there gives it credit for. I would like the Minister of Health who is a forward-thinking Minister to instigate some sort of trial of that system. That is all I am asking for and I will attempt from time to time in this House to get her to recognise it. 
For a few minutes I will tell the House about a lady a Mrs Karen Griffen from Whakatane who had what one might call a very innocuous accident—she ate a pineapple lump. I can see that Judy Turner knows of the case. She came to see me some time ago. Eating a pineapple lump nearly killed her. The doctors did not know how to treat her and neither did the hospitals. They virtually said she was a head case and that she should go home. She felt she was nearly dying. 
 I will read some extracts from this article. Karen Griffen claims that doctors at the hospital refused to treat her when she was critically ill dismissed her illness as psychological and sent her home to die. Finally a local general practitioner fixed it after all the anguish this lady went through. But will this bill fix this situation in the future for someone else? Mrs Griffen is OK now I am pleased to tell the House as far as I am aware. But will this bill fix that? No it will not. 
Steve Chadwick 
: It was ingestion of a pineapple lump. It was not an injury. 
PETER BROWN 
: I tell the member that if someone is nearly dying they do not care whether it is because of the ingestion of a pineapple lump or something else. The doctors did not diagnose it correctly and she suffered hugely as a result. I would tell that member Steve Chadwick to show a little bit more compassion. We should look at the width of this type of injury if one likes and see whether we can cover more people rather than just confining it to a few. This is a good opportunity for the House to look at it in a positive manner. 
Steve Chadwick 
: Do an amendment. 
PETER BROWN 
: I will put forward an amendment if necessary. 
Darren Hughes 
: A pineapple amendment! 
PETER BROWN 
: That man makes a joke of it. The young fellow has a lifetime in front of him and he makes a joke of a lady who nearly died as a result of a fairly innocent type of thing. I think the member should hang his head in shame. 
If I have one disappointment it is that this bill will go to the Health Committee. That is a disappointment because I will not be on that select committee and I have taken an interest in accident compensation for quite some time. But I have a very able colleague who will keep the Government members in line. She is a very compassionate lady and she will ensure that this bill is modified to suit New Zealanders. Another part of me is actually pleased that the bill is going to the Health Committee because I know that that committee can handle it promptly and we can get this bill passed promptly whereas the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee—where the bill should probably go—is bogged down with other work. So part of me is pleased about where this bill is going and part of me is disappointed. New Zealand First is pleased to see this bill come to the House and we will certainly support its referral to select committee. I seek leave to table the article. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 The key component of this bill constitutes a significant and positive reform in the way the Accident Compensation Corporation deals with medical misadventure cases and on that basis the Green Party will be voting for it to go to the select committee today. 
For many years there have been huge problems for anyone trying to make a compensation claim under the medical misadventure provisions as thousands of injured people can testify. As well as all those people whose claims are turned down I believe there are even more who have never filed a claim because of the evident hopelessness of getting anywhere given the stringent conditions that are applied. The present system has also created tensions and difficulties within the practice of medicine with doctors seeing every claim as a potential threat to their personal and professional future. This has not been useful at a time when the health system is finally beginning to learn that it would be better if the sector could learn honestly from mistakes and slippages made rather than putting the emphasis on allocating blame and protecting individuals from legal action. 
Before I go any further with medical misadventure and other aspects of this bill however I would like to deal with the potentially controversial subject of acupuncturists. One important aspect of the legislation in front of us this afternoon is that it amends the definition of acupuncturist in terms of who can treat people under accident compensation legislation. The proposal is to extend the definition of acupuncturists to include members of the New Zealand Acupuncture Standards Authority who have a health professional qualification and either a 1-year full-time postgraduate qualification in acupuncture or a level 7 diploma in acupuncture. At present only members of the New Zealand Register of Acupuncturists are eligible for accident compensation treatment payments. I understand that the New Zealand Register of Acupuncturists is bringing legal action against the Government because of the Government’s move to expand the pool of professional acupuncturists eligible for accident compensation payments. The Green Party intends to carry out its own further investigations into this issue and our ongoing support for the bill is dependent on working towards a reasonable outcome in this area which we hope will be satisfactory for all concerned. 
I turn now to the medical misadventure provisions of this legislation. The Green Party is as I said earlier delighted to see that at last there will be an end to the anomaly in which medical misadventure was the exception to the otherwise no-fault nature of the accident compensation scheme. Currently cover for medical misadventure is restricted by section 32 of the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2001 to what is defined as medical mishap medical error and the transmission of infection caused originally by medical misadventure. At the moment medical mishap is seen as an adverse consequence of treatment that is severe and rare. 
We believe that this has given rise to situations of serious injustice over and over again. There are many examples but I will give just two. In district court cases in 1998 and 2000 the court upheld decisions to decline cover for medical mishap in cases of the severe back condition arachnoiditis caused by a myelogram dye test. The Accident Compensation Corporation had relied on the incidence of arachnoiditis not being a sufficiently rare outcome of the myelogram procedure to meet the test for medical mishap to deny claimants access to income compensation. As a result of the Accident Compensation Corporation declining cover backed up by the court people whose lives had been ruined by a genuine medical mishap were denied accident compensation support and of course on top of that were eligible only for sickness or invalids benefits if they did not have a partner earning during the relevant period. The use of the severity and rarity criteria has meant that arbitrary and unjust decisions have been applied to many claims. The sooner we can bring an end to this parlous situation the better. 
The second subset of medical misadventure is medical error. This is currently defined roughly speaking as personal injury resulting from the failure of a registered health professional or organisation to provide treatment at a standard of care and skill that could be reasonably expected in the circumstances. There are significant difficulties with this from the point of view of injured people. The principles behind this are totally at odds with the no-fault basis for the rest of the accident compensation scheme. 
 Health professionals are often reluctant to cooperate in determining claims because of the possibly significant and deleterious consequences to them personally. This concept of medical error is markedly out of step with a sensible and structural approach to solving problems within the health system. On top of that those types of claims can often involve massive delays of up to 9 months or more for the unfortunate individuals who are trying to get help at a time when they may well be suffering significant pain and incapacity. 
The proposal in this bill to replace cover for personal injury caused by medical misadventure by personal injury caused by treatment from 1 February next year will help to address most of those anomalies and the Green Party welcomes that change. However within that area we do have one or two concerns that we hope might be dealt with during the process of select committee consideration. First of all there is a proposition within the bill that will exclude from cover personal injury that is solely attributable to a resource allocation decision. To give one example of what this might mean the provision could be applied to someone who is denied accident compensation cover when the recurrence of a metastatic cancer that is caused by delays in the provision of radiation therapy for a primary cancer occurs solely because there are not enough radiation therapists or equipment to carry out the treatment in a timely manner. Unfortunately that is a very real kind of situation in New Zealand at present and we would like to see the bill amended to remove that exclusion at least for injuries of such severity that they currently qualify as medical mishaps—for example those causing death hospitalisation for more than 14 days or significant disability for more than 28 days. 
Secondly The Green Party has concerns about the time limit on making decisions on claims of medical misadventure. At the moment the maximum time limit for the corporation to make a decision on a claim is 9 months and that is retained in the new bill. That time limit has been a major concern for claimants who are kept in limbo often with no support at all for lengthy periods. The Green Party is keen to see the bill amended so that the Accident Compensation Corporation will be allowed a shorter time limit to process claims. 
I move now to one or two other features of this bill. We welcome the amendment to provide discretion for the Accident Compensation Corporation to provide entitlements in areas where it is currently not liable to do so. Current legislative restrictions mean that the Accident Compensation Corporation is prevented from granting discretionary entitlements even when it clearly would be beneficial to both the claimant and the corporation to do so. Examples include the 3-year limit placed on vocational rehabilitation and the 28-day limit on the provision of attendant care while outside New Zealand. However quite strangely the new bill takes away with the same hand that gives with its proposal to exclude such discretionary decisions from the review and appeal process. The Green Party will oppose any of the Accident Compensation Corporation’s decisions being protected from an application for review or an appeal by a claimant. That is especially important given that there are already very limited rights of review in this area. 
Finally there are a number of other fairly minor reforms to accident compensation in this bill that the Green Party does support. Those are for example amendments relating to cover for mental injury due to sexual abuse prior to 1 July 1992 changes to the definition of earnings as an employee and an amendment to the definition of “accident” which corrects a rather strange anomaly resulting from certain court decisions. 
This is a bill whose overarching purpose is well overdue and I hope the select committee process will allow members to improve it where it is not quite right. I congratulate the Minister on her persistence in bringing about long-needed changes to the way in which the Accident Compensation Corporation deals with medical misadventure and I look forward to hearing what submitters have to say. 
HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
: 
 The Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 3) appears to be a series of amendments tidying up Accident Compensation Corporation anomalies that exist at present. The key measure of course is the new regime for treatment injuries. It is interesting to have a quick look through the explanatory note where the Government states that its aim “moves away from the punitive system of finding medical error and reporting medical misadventure cover decisions: gains the co-operation of the health sector to participate in the claim process to support claimants to make claims … : supports and acts as a catalyst for quality/learning initiatives in the health sector:” and “helps maintain the safety net through reporting cases …”. 
All of these are very worthy and I think that not a person in this Chamber would disagree with them. In my mind the question is in practice how all of those points will be achieved. It is a good start to try to deal with the difficulties around medical mishaps. The definitions which include “error” and “rare and severe” criteria will be replaced with a definition of “personal injury caused by treatment” or as it is referred to throughout the bill the newly defined “treatment injury”. That is a step in the right direction. 
Madam Chair I am just finding it a little difficult to concentrate with the conversations happening around me. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Can I say to members—please can the member be seated—it is very difficult for members to hear. 
HEATHER ROY 
: I think that given the Accident Compensation Corporation’s “no fault” approach to accident compensation it is very logical to deal with these things. Some time ago when these changes were first mooted I made some statements. I think that for too long there has been an incentive for patients to find fault with the performance of our medical professionals—I will come on to the flip side of that coin in a moment. A separation of guilt and compensation and a fairer system of medical misadventure assessment is long overdue. Under our current system a claimant is expected to prove fault by a health professional who then has to be found culpable in order for compensation to be awarded. That has provided in the past a tempting financial incentive for a patient to prove that his or her health professional has erred. That obviously is unacceptable and there should be no such incentive in a fair system. Changes are definitely needed to ensure that anyone seeking medical compensation does so but not frivolously. 
The Minister has said on many occasions that people who should be entitled to compensation have been missing out when it comes to medical misadventure. It is very important that there is some sort of balance in this regard. ACT has maintained for quite some time that the fairest and most efficient way to deal with this matter is to establish an insurance-based scheme that should be open to competition including involvement from the private sector. This would ensure that while deserving patients are compensated our health professionals are not left open to illegitimate claims. 
Going back briefly to what the Government intends in this legislation it talks about supporting and acting as a catalyst for quality learning initiatives in the health sector and I believe that that comes back directly to protected quality assurance provisions for all health professionals. Those have been seen for many years and have developed well over the past decade amongst the medical profession and that profession has been including other health professionals as time has gone on and other health professionals have also developed their own good-quality quality assurance programmes. 
The Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act which is due to come into force in September provided a lot of discussion around this point. At the beginning many of us on the select committee were very unhappy with the provisions for the protection of quality assurance programmes. Those concerns have in the main been dealt with and certainly the medical profession and many of the other health professionals’ bodies have now decided that they can operate well with them. But what we want to establish is an environment where health professionals feel they are able to get together with a degree of protection and discuss mistakes that have been made in a no-blame environment and learn from the experiences of those who have been in such positions themselves. 
Before I move forward much further I would like to talk a little about the accident compensation scheme generally and again these are points that are pertinent to this legislation although they do cover the whole of the scheme. ACT has always been unhappy that injuries caused by accident are covered for compensation but illness is not. Those of us who have worked in the medical profession do not have to look very far to find examples. In fact if one wanders into any orthopaedic ward in the country in either private hospitals or public one will often see two patients in beds side by side. One might be somebody who is perhaps in his or her 60s who through no fault of his or her own has developed osteoarthritis and requires surgery for a joint replacement. It is not uncommon to find in the next bed a young person who might have had a motorbike accident—frequently caused by that person’s own mistake—and because it was an accident that person is covered for compensation. Those of us who have worked in that situation often observe the injustice those two separate injuries present despite the fact that they receive similar treatment and the patients have similar health needs. New Zealanders deserve a health system that deals with those two categories requiring medical treatment in the same way. Many people seem to have given up on creating that fair kind of system but it is achievable by using insurance-based schemes. 
For a brief period of course in 1999 we did have a glimmer of hope about achieving that type of system. Competition was introduced into the market and the private sector was allowed to tender alongside the public. The choice that was presented to the employers for the employers account in this regard is something that ACT is certainly committed to achieving again. 
But if I turn back to the bill I find it does appear logical to align “treatment injuries”—as the new definition will be—with the general no-fault approach to accident compensation. But ACT would like to highlight some potential problems. 
The bill tries to define treatment injury so as to exclude the particular injury or complaint itself. Some might say that that is logical but for others it would signal a creeping extension of the accident compensation scheme to cover sickness and ill health and I do not think that is the intention of this legislation at all. But in trying to define it issues do arise. The new section 32(2) proposed to be inserted into the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Act by clause 13 describes the sorts of things that are not considered personal injuries and there is a list. They include the underlying condition. They also include anything that might arise from a logical progression of the condition or treatment if it is an anticipated part of the treatment and may include known side effects as an example. But then the new section 33 defines “treatment” extremely widely. It includes treatment diagnosis and even the decision not to give treatment or to not provide treatment in a timely manner. Potentially any situation where a health professional fails to immediately and correctly diagnose a condition and correctly treat it could be construed as a treatment leading to a treatment injury. That could even apply perhaps to the non-treatment of the thousands of people on waiting lists for elective services. 
But going back to the new section 32(2)(c) that paragraph lets the Government off the hook by excluding from the definition of personal injury caused by treatment or treatment injury “personal injury that is solely attributable to a resource allocation decision:” and this is where the waters suddenly become very murky. The lack of treatment or failure to provide treatment is defined as a treatment—so far so good. But what if the injury is not solely attributable to a resource allocation decision? What if that is only 90 percent of the reason for the injury? So here I think and my concern is raised that this opens up the grey area for lawyers and litigation that has been discussed by some other members. There is a grey area in what is a result of a resource allocation decision and a grey area as to whether and to what extent any treatment is an anticipated part of treatment. It would seem that conflicting medical opinions will be all that is required to show that some doubt exists as to the cause of any injury. I too like Dr Hutchison would like to highlight that there is no regulatory impact statement with this bill and we will be raising that at the select committee. 
JUDY TURNER (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to support the referral of the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 3) through to the select committee stage. As a consequence of a recent review initiated by the Government this bill is primarily designed to change the way in which medical misadventure claims are covered by the accident compensation scheme. Such claims fall into two categories: medical error which covers the failure of a health professional or organisation to observe a certain standard of care and medical mishap which covers adverse consequences of treatment. But perhaps the most significant amendment in this bill is that it removes the distinction between the two and replaces them with a definition of “personal injury caused by treatment”. Medical misadventure claims now cost about $47 million a year and the changes are estimated to cost an extra $8.69 million because the new definition of “treatment injury” does broaden the scope of claims. 
Amongst the present criteria for a successful medical mishap claim is the requirement that the injury needs to be both rare and severe which means that it must occur in no more than 1 percent of cases and in some cases requires at least another 14 days of treatment. Such criteria are too arbitrary often bearing little relationship to the circumstances of patients and resulting in a significant number of claimants unfairly missing out on cover. It probably comes as little surprise to learn that since the medical misadventure system was introduced in 1992 60 percent of claims have been declined for failing to meet the criteria. 
In terms of establishing medical error the current criteria mean establishing that an individual practitioner or organisation is at fault. That has always been inconsistent with the no-fault ethos of the accident compensation scheme. The removal of the distinction between error and mishap under this bill and the new focus on personal injury caused by treatment directs the Accident Compensation Corporation to examine the injury that results not whether someone is to blame for it. 
In addition the current requirement that the corporation must establish responsibility and report individual practitioners involved in medical error claims to the relevant registration authority has resulted in reluctance to participate in the claims process on the part of health practitioners. As a result the resolution of claims is often delayed or hindered and it is the person who is injured who suffers as a result whether medical error is established or not. 
It is expected that practitioners will be more receptive to an accident compensation claim investigation if they know that it is focused more squarely on ascertaining whether the patient is eligible for assistance rather than determining where the fault lies. That raises the question of who has responsibility that those who make medical errors are investigated. Under the bill the Accident Compensation Corporation will have a clear obligation to inform claimants of their ability to complain about treatment injury and of the role of the Health and Disability Commissioner. If the corporation decides there is a risk of harm to the public as a result of information it collects in order to process claims then it must report the information to the agency that has statutory responsibilities for addressing and determining competency issues such as the Director-General of Health. That is entirely consistent with the corporation’s injury prevention role. 
It is also fair to point out that the mechanisms for dealing with practitioner competence have developed significantly since the medical misadventure scheme began. Since the establishment in 1996 of the Health and Disability Commissioner to resolve patients’ complaints and accountability concerns there has been a fourfold decrease in the number of practitioners facing disciplinary hearings. District health boards have improved systems in place to monitor and address issues arising from adverse medical events and the passage of the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act last year created a single regulatory framework for health professionals. 
Perhaps the key area of concern for United Future is that the bill may not go far enough to ensure that incidents of treatment injury are fully investigated. That is not to say that that should be the responsibility of the Accident Compensation Corporation as we accept the position that that is not the intent of the scheme nor is it where the corporation’s expertise lies. But we do need to make absolutely sure that some other entity steps into the breach and it needs to be aware of what is going on when it does so. This House is all too familiar with one common cause of most incidents of systemic failure: the lack of inter-agency coordination. Perhaps the examples that spring most readily to mind are those tragic instances where the agencies involved in child protection have failed to work together to ensure the safety of abused and neglected children. 
I am concerned that the desire to put the Accident Compensation Corporation at arm’s length from investigations into staff competence could lead to a situation whereby the risk of further injuries is not adequately communicated to those who have responsibility for practitioner competence and conduct. For example what is the threshold for action in a situation in which the Accident Compensation Corporation decides it should pass on information that it collects in the course of processing claims that suggests there is a risk of harm to the public? Does the corporation wait until it is aware of repeated instances of error or does it act only when it considers the problems to be systemic rather than simply accidental? And are there such things as accidents or on the other hand is there a danger that the reporting requirements that remain will still lead to reluctance from health practitioners to participate in the claims process if they feel they will be reported to their professional body? Those are certainly issues that the committee will need to focus on when considering the bill. But at this stage we are very happy for it to enter the process and we will support the first reading. 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I take a short call to say that I am delighted the bill will be referred to the Health Committee which is a very able committee due to its membership across the parties and which will be able to consider this bill thoroughly. The one aspect of the bill that I think is very exciting is the removal of the “fault” or “rare and severe” test that is currently required by the Accident Compensation Corporation. It has been a stumbling block and has meant that patients have not been able to get their full entitlement for compensation quickly because the high threshold for rare and severe conditions has had to have been tested out. There are many other aspects of this bill that are very very positive. It is the third accident compensation bill of this Government and I look forward to considering it in the Health Committee. 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I too will take just a short call on this bill. The previous speaker for the National Party Dr Paul Hutchison summed up this bill very well. There are a couple of little issues I would like to highlight. The previous speaker Steve Chadwick has just commented on the “fault / no fault” provision and the difficulty with medical misadventure. Certainly in our electorates we find that one of the biggest complaints of members of the public is that they do not understand why the different attitude in relation to medical misadventure exists. 
 But of course that is the nature of accident compensation; it is never going to please anyone in the first place. In many ways it is trying to deal with a situation and say that there is no fault when actually a lot of people feel that there is a certain amount of fault—particularly if one happens to be the victim of a drunk driver. It is very difficult to tell that person there is no fault and it is even more difficult to explain why somebody who hurt a knee in a driving accident in which that person happened to be drunk and caused the accident should get instant medical treatment on a knee while a World War II veteran has to linger for years and years and is basically left to die because the veteran cannot get an operation. I would certainly be very happy to see a situation where the veterans of this country get treated with the same respect as the drunk drivers. 
In essence we are supporting the referral of this bill to the Health Committee. We have of course some concerns as Dr Hutchison has outlined but we will try with the Government and the other parties to get this bill in good order. I note that it is the third accident compensation bill that this Government has put up in the last 5 years and it does beg the question of when it is going to get it right. 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 On behalf of New Zealand First I rise to support the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 3) being referred to the Health Committee. The previous speaker from New Zealand First summed it up very well. As my colleague Peter Brown said New Zealand First has been pushing for this legislation for many years. I think he mentioned the figure of 5 years which is a long time. We are very aware too that many people in New Zealand have been waiting for this legislation particularly those suffering from medical misadventure. Nobody wants to go into hospital for an operation and to come out with another condition that he or she never went in with. 
It is a very important bill. We are looking forward to those people who are affected by the bill having some input at the select committee stage. As my colleague Peter Brown pointed out there are some aspects of the legislation that New Zealand First is most interested in and we want to ensure that this bill is correct. It is a significant bill and the issue is costly for New Zealand so it does need to be correct. We are very aware that there are a number of anomalies in the Act. We are pleased to see too that some of the definitions have been updated in line with other legislation particularly when it comes to the word “accident” where we see that the bill clarifies that twisting movements are now included in the definition of “accident” rather than just the purely vertical physical movements that were in the previous legislation. 
We definitely do not want to see people missing out on compensation when they should be receiving it for medical misadventure. So on behalf of New Zealand First I say that we will be most interested to see this bill come into the select committee process and to ensure that it is correct. We will be supporting this bill’s referral to the select committee. 
Bill read a first time and referred to theHealth Committee.referred to Health Committee 
Electricity and Gas Industries Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Associate Minister of Energy) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Energy 
: I move  
That the Electricity and Gas Industries Bill be now read a second time 
. This bill is a further milestone in providing New Zealand with energy in an efficient a fair a reliable and an environmentally sustainable manner in the post-Maui environment. The bill contains measures to promote security of supply consumer protection and competition and to improve the governance of the electricity and gas industries. It updates the Electricity Act of 1992 to take account of the establishment of the Electricity Commission. The security of the supply of electricity is clearly essential to New Zealand and to New Zealanders. The bill provides an enhanced tool-box of powers for ensuring the security of the electricity supply including enabling the Electricity Commission to contract for reserve energy supplies for very dry years. Additional regulation-making powers are provided for use if required covering consumer protection the promotion of retail competition improved information for market participants and the development of distributed generation. Regulation-making powers are also provided under an amendment to the Crown Minerals Act to allow better disclosure of information relating to gas and oil reserves. The bill also amends the Commerce Act to clarify the interface between the functions and powers of the Commerce Commission and of the Electricity Commission in relation to the control of electricity distribution companies. 
The bill was referred to the Commerce Committee which heard submissions from a wide range of interested parties. I commend the committee for the excellent work it has done in refining this bill and I support the committee’s recommendations. I take this opportunity to discuss a number of improvements made to the bill by the committee. In relation to the gas sector the bill now provides for the establishment of an approved industry body to co-regulate the gas industry while retaining backstop powers to establish an Energy Commission if the industry’s body is not successful. A co-regulatory approach was proposed by the Gas Industry Steering Group made up of representatives from the upstream and downstream gas industry and gas consumers. It has been designed in consultation with and with the support of the industry. The co-regulatory model has been developed to ensure that the incentives on the industry are aligned with the outcomes the Government seeks and that the governance arrangements are constitutionally sound. 
The bill also amends the Electricity Industry Reform Act in order to allow electricity lines companies to own any type of generation equivalent to the higher of 50 megawatts or 20 percent of the network load. The companies are of course already able to own unlimited amounts of new renewable generation. The electricity lines companies asked that the provisions in that Act that restrict the ability of lines companies to invest in generation and retailing be repealed. While the lines companies made some valid points the Government believes that risks may still exist with regard to allowing lines companies back into generation and retailing. A major change of that nature to the current industry structure would not be appropriate without full consideration and consultation on the issues involved. For that reason instead of repealing the provisions outright Government members decided that a further easing of the limits on how much electricity the lines companies can generate is more appropriate. 
A number of important provisions are also included in the bill to ensure good governance and process. The Electricity Commission will be required to assess alternatives costs and benefits prior to making recommendations for regulations or rules. That will increase transparency around the Electricity Commission’s decision-making and will reduce uncertainty for the industry. The Government also expects the commission to achieve its objectives primarily through information provision and contracting and to use the regulation-making powers provided in the bill as a last resort. It is also proposed thatthe current powers of the Minister under the Electricity Act be curtailed in a number of ways including removing the Minister’s power to direct the commission limiting the Minister’s ability to amend the commission’s recommendations and precluding the Minister from promulgating regulations unless the commission has first made a regulation. 
The select committee has also amended the bill in such a way that the power to transfer jurisdiction for the targeted price control regime for lines companies from the Commerce Commission to the Electricity Commission has been delayed until 31 March 2009. That change acknowledges the view of many submitters to the select committee who validly suggested that any change in the regulatory jurisdiction for large electricity lines companies other than Transpower should be further deferred so as to maintain the continuity and integrity of the price control and other assessment processes already initiated by the Commerce Commission. A further important improvement made by the select committee is to strengthen the mandate of the Electricity Commission to promote electricity efficiency by allowing the commission to fund programmes relating to cost-effective energy efficiency and conservation. That is important in order to allow more effective promotion of energy efficiency and demand side management. The committee has also made explicit provision for Transpower to contract for generation and to manage grid reliability. That is important for situations where it may be more cost effective to generate electricity closer to the demand for it than to upgrade the transmission lines. 
The electricity and gas sectors are critical to New Zealand’s economic growth. We face continuing challenges to ensuring the security of supply in both sectors at the best possible prices. Those challenges include the depletion of the Maui gasfield our vulnerability to dry hydro years and the growth in demand for electricity. At the same time we aim to make continuing progress towards a sustainable energy future. This bill is a key part of the Government’s response to those challenges. The Government will clearly set out its objectives for the electricity industry in the Government policy statement that will be released following the passing of this bill. The Government policy statement will continue to invite the industry to use cooperative means to deliver on those results so that the Electricity Commission will need to use its regulation-making powers only as a last resort. 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 National strongly opposes this legislation. There is no doubt that New Zealand is facing a power crisis. Each winter Kiwis face an uncertain future. Will there be enough electricity for hot showers will the lights stay on or will they go off? Will there be enough energy to run our industries? Will there be enough energy to provide certainty to industry to attract capital either foreign or domestic into that type of infrastructural development? However this piece of Government-sponsored nonsense will not achieve that certainty. Will this legislation answer the most often-asked question by people overseas who are thinking about investing in this country which is “Will you guarantee a constant and competitive source of electricity?” Jim Anderton bangs on and on about the wood processing strategy in the forestry industry but when one talks to the forestry people they say there are two gigantic flaws in Mr Anderton’s strategy. One is the Resource Management Act and the other is a lack of certainty with regard to the constant source of energy. 
So will this legislation deal with those questions? The answer is that it will not. This legislation typifies what is wrong with this Cabinet. I could write their collective commercial experience on the back of a 45c stamp with a carpenter’s pencil. They simply do not know how to respond to this problem so they are captured by textbook solutions and some very very willing officials. This legislation is the bureaucrat’s answer to a pragmatic problem. 
Unlike Mr Anderton I will not bang on and on about the complexities of this industry—and I do agree that there are some complexities. However the reality is that we do not have enough generation in this country and no amount of Government-sponsored nonsense like this will deal with that issue. Rather than face that simple fact this Minister invents the Electricity Commission as the panacea to all our energy problems. 
Thirty years ago we had first-class infrastructure around energy in this country. But our regional economies have boomed and our population has grown by a million. In Canterbury alone driven by irrigation the demand for energy is now twice as much as two Dunedin Cities combined. What do we get from this Government? The Electricity Commission as if it is the answer! It simply is not. But it is apparent that we will get it whether we like it or not. It would have been nice to get a model that actually works but this arrogant Minister would not listen to some of our leading industry experts. Submitter after submitter came to the select committee and told the Minister that this process simply would not work. Companies like Contact Energy Mighty River Power Powerco Meridian Energy Transpower—all major electricity users groups—and the list goes on and on. But would the Minister listen? Absolutely not! 
The overwhelming number of submitters expressed concerns about the Electricity Commission’s design. It will create an institution with advisory operational and regulatory roles that place it in serious risk of performance failure and judicial review. Under this bill the Electricity Commission is to be a policy adviser proposer of regulation and rules purchaser and/or provider of market operations purchaser of reserve power seller of electricity in dry years adjudicator of fines and penalties industry facilitator promoter of energy conservation decision maker over investment services and prices of State-owned enterprises and Commerce Act regulator of the prices and services of distribution and transmission companies. With the best will in the world no matter how well managed no company can manage effectively with that range of conflicting roles. 
It gets worse. The Electricity Commission will not achieve satisfactory independence while it is subject to Government policy and ministerial intervention. We were warned at the select committee that these provisions are incompatible with a regulatory institution and are in stark contrast to the independent processes associated with the Commerce Commission as an example. The implications for investment in the electricity industry for this country are immense. 
In the absence of safeguards against regulatory appropriation businesses subject to industry-specific regulation will protect themselves by simply under-investing in this industry. What is worse is that the industries that do invest will expect a higher rate of return than they would have otherwise sought because they have to mitigate the risk that is being imposed on them. 
The investment that does occur will be those types of organisations that have a direct door to the Minister—ministerial-friendly companies. What we will get are those organisations that are the mates of “Blackout Pete” applying and no one else will. The commission will work against investment and that is exactly what is needed if we are to avoid further crises in this country. That is why the National Party is totally in support of the removal of any limits on line companies entering generation subject to normal Commerce Commission oversight to make sure that they are not employing any anti-competitive practices. 
That we need investment in lines companies is absolute but what will happen is the greatest tragedy of all. Line companies with fat balance sheets will simply invest in other people’s economies. That will be a tragedy of huge proportions for New Zealand. With what has been suggested by this Minister that may very well happen. 
Finally I want turn my attention to the gas industry. There is no doubt that investment in this industry is expensive and risky but if observers ever wanted a bare example of this Government’s naivety directing business to share their infrastructure is it. This is not one of “Blackout Pete’s” better ideas. This is the rationale: investment in infrastructure is expensive and risky; if company X—and let us call company X “Shell”—does invest and strikes it rich we will tell all its competitor companies to use Shell’s infrastructure. 
Dave Hereora 
: Rubbish! 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Well that is what he is suggesting. And there is one big flaw in that suggestion is there not? Why on earth would one invest hundreds of millions of dollars into research development and expansion in this country and then be directed by the Government that one must give one’s competitors a leg-up—one has to share the infrastructure? What that would do for one’s competitors is keep their prices down and eliminate risks for them. Does anyone bar this Minister think that will attract foreign investment in our electricity or gas industries in this country? If so they are in a very very small minority. For goodness’ sake! I tell the Minister to get real resign or at least get something more pragmatic and sensible in place before he plunges New Zealand into a permanent state of darkness. The Minister should get real. 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Energy) 
: 
 The member who has just resumed his seat has the dodgiest CV of any member of this House. He has been investigated by his own party at a high level. He still has not come clean. He says that he is a consultant a banker and someone who works for international conglomerates. The truth is that he owns a farm on the Canterbury Plains. 
Recent history of electricity in this country is that 30 years ago when that member said we had perfect infrastructure we were just getting through the 1975 crisis. That was what was going on then. But within years some bright spark said that we should stick a high dam across the Clutha River near a town called Clyde which happened to be on a fault line. We spent millions of dollars grouting the bottom of the river and then we spent millions more deciding to put a road through to Cromwell where the road did not want to go. Then we spent millions of dollars tunnelling into the hillside and we decided we needed to do that because if we did not de-water the escarpment then the lake would cause it to lubricate and fall into the lake which had just formed and overtop the dam that had just been built. 
That was the Clyde Dam. That was part of “think big” that was Mr Muldoon that was Mr Birch and that was part of the 410000 jobs that were going to come from “think big”. Search parties have gone out looking for those 410000 jobs. They have searched the dominion high and low including the off-shore islands; many of them have not returned but no jobs have been found. So that was the history of the National Party and electricity. 
But wait there is more. The National Party decided it was going to learn from its mistakes so it decided it would deregulate. It decided it was going to privatise. It decided it was going to go to free market and it decided that the market and the price discovery arising from the market would result in just enough electricity—not too much not too little at just the right price that the market would always clear that the people would always be happy and that the lights would always stay on. 
That is what happened with the National Party. It went from one extreme to the other and so we saw the split of ECNZ and its partial privatisation—we put a stop to the rest of it. We saw the so-called “Bradford reforms” which were based on the idea that no one who owned a line could also own an electron—a remarkable bit of public policy. That saw the whole of the electricity industry turned on its ear and a whole lot of people forced to sell assets that their communities had paid for over tens of years—indeed in some cases in Dunedin over a century. That was the “Bradford reforms”. The market would provide; there would be no need for anything! 
 And then guess what happened? In 2001 it stopped raining. What happened then? We started to run out of electricity. Did the price go up? Yes. Were people happy about that? No. Were we going to run out of electricity? Yes. So the then Government this Government intervened in the form of a very substantial conservation campaign. We got a response from the public and we got ourselves out of the mess occasioned by “no market”. In 2003 it happened again. At that stage we said we had had enough. We had put legislation through the House in 2001. It was strongly opposed by the National Party. The Government said: “We will need backstop legislation to set up an Electricity Commission if we need one.” The National Party said that the legislation was draconian. They said it was outrageous. They voted against it. They made a noise even greater than the noise they are making now and when we needed that legislation in May 2003 we put it in without a whimper because the Tories got it wrong again. 
The Tories get it wrong all the time. That is why we have gone from the extremes of “Rob Muldoon and Bill Birch know best” through to “the market knows best” and now we have a managed market and a regulator. Now we have something roughly the same as what the rest of the world has. This legislation completes the job. It gives the commission a few more tools. It does for the gas industry what we have already done for the electricity industry. It means that we have a future in which we can have a little more certainty than we have had before. It allows reserve generation to be built. 
Guess what? We have already built the first bit of reserve generation and I will tell members where. It is at a place called Whirinaki just north of Napier. I will tell members something else about that site. The reason we used it is that there used to be a power station there. Several weeks ago we opened 150 megawatts of diesel. What happened was that the site had already been used in its history for a certain amount of power generation. It was 150 megawatts of diesel. Does that sound familiar? What happened to that 150 megawatts of diesel? I will tell members what happened. The Tories went free market and the plant was picked up by Contact Energy which had become the owners of it under privatisation. They sold the last bit of it in March 2001 just as the rains had stopped. That is what happens when the free market is allowed to go to work. 
Brian Connell 
: Why doesn’t every industry expert agree with you? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The member has decided that he is in favour of the National Party policy. Who knows what it is? He is clearly the next Opposition spokesperson on energy. Until now it has been Roger Sowry before then it was Pansy Wong before then it was Gerry Brownlee and before then it was Max Bradford—although that is a swear word these days. It cost him his job; he has left politics. That party changes its energy spokesperson every 12 months and none of its members get up to speed. 
Just contrast that with the United Future party New Zealand First the Greens—all of those parties know what they are talking about. The Tories do not know what they are talking about on energy and have not known since Doug Kidd ran the show. There was a Minister who did know something about energy. We have a situation where the Tories having a history that has failed at one extreme failed in another extreme and is now busily recirculating its energy spokespersons is going to run out of caucus members. Before too long there will be not one person in the National Party who has not had the energy portfolio. And still they will not know anything about it because they have all held it for about 8 months or whatever. 
So I welcome the new member into the energy portfolio. I congratulate him on his outrageously stupid beginning. I think that is exactly the same beginning that has been made by three or four predecessors. He will get better as they did. As soon as he has worked out how to spell the word “energy” he will have the portfolio taken off him and it will be given to someone else—probably Lindsay Tisch. 
I say to National Party members that they should be supporting this legislation because it is sensible. But because they do not understand the policy at all and never will I do not expect their support. We do not need it and just as well. This is a House of Representatives and those representatives represent those people who choose not to understand. 
I say to the National Party to please try to get a grip on what is happening in the energy portfolio. Please try to understand that their history is far from proud. The 410000 jobs never arose. The free market did not work. Electricity is not baked beans. It will never be baked beans. The National Party has not worked that out. I understand that National Party members in the select committee opposed the raising of the threshold. 
Debate interrupted. 
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.