Volume 616 Week 52 - Thursday 25 March 2004 
Volume 616 Week 52 - Thursday 25 March 2004 
[Volume:616;Page:11989] 
Thursday 25 March 2004 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Speaker’s Rulings 
Contempt Finding—Hon Dr Nick Smith 
Mr SPEAKER 
: As members will appreciate since the finding of contempt against the Hon Dr Nick Smith the Clerk of the House and I have received numerous media inquiries as to the effect of the finding on Dr Smith’s membership of the House. We have both declined to comment on the ground that any advice on such a matter should be given to this House rather than to individual members of the media. The media can learn my views by reporting the proceedings of this House. 
I have not seen any order of the court with regard to Dr Smith nor have I seen the court’s judgment. In those circumstances the question is academic at present. I also understand that Dr Smith is contemplating an appeal. Ultimately whether a vacancy has arisen is a matter for me as Speaker to be satisfied of. I refer members to section 129(1) of the Electoral Act. 
I am certainly not satisfied that a vacancy exists at this time. In the meantime I therefore intend to adhere to the provisional view expressed by the Clerk of the House to the Business Committee on 24 August 2003—a copy of which was handed out at that meeting and all parties were there—that if Dr Smith were to be found in contempt of court no disqualification would follow. 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House priority will be given to the Committee stage of the Income Tax Bill. Following the conclusion of that urgency will be taken. An email has gone to all party whips outlining the business to be included in the urgency motion. Urgency will certainly not go beyond 6 o’clock on Friday. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before Mr Brownlee comments I would like to refer to a matter that occurred yesterday in the House. I would like to ask Mr Brownlee whether he made a disparaging remark about the Chair as he left the House. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Sorry? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: A remark was made by the member when he was asked to leave the House. Did he make a disparaging remark about the Chair at the time? 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 No. I made a remark about a course of action that I intended to pursue. I have done that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That ends the matter. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 Given that the Leader of the House has published the urgency motion which has a reasonable amount of business in it and noting that much of that business is hardly of the urgent nature that urgency would portend can we expect that provision will be made for question time on Wednesday and Thursday of next week—noting of course that the Government at this time would have no fears about being placed under scrutiny by the Opposition? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Certainly the latter is true. However to come to the point raised by the member as is always the case that is a matter for discussion between myself and the other parties. Of course if we finish by 1 o’clock on Wednesday or by 1 o’clock on Thursday question time will follow automatically. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Given that Easter is soon to be upon us and that for the umpteenth time nothing has been done in respect of giving the local community a chance to trade on Easter Sunday can I ask Dr Cullen whether the Government intends to give that legislation any priority at all? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 The bill that deals with Easter Sunday trading is a member’s bill. It would be open to the member to seek leave to take that bill under urgency at the conclusion of Government business in the urgency motion. I for one certainly would not oppose that. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I so move. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to have that bill considered as part of the urgency motion at the end of the other listed items. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Amended Answers to Oral Questions 
Question No. 7 to Minister 16 March 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister of Fisheries) 
: 
 On that day the Rt Hon Winston Peters asked me which appeals to the Catch History Review Committee Jacqui Lowe sat on prior to March 2004. I gave the following response. “I am advised that Jacqui Lowe has sat on 23 appeals since January 2001. Information on her involvement in all proceedings since her appointment in 1998 is not immediately available but I will provide it in writing to the honourable member as soon as possible.” The more detailed information I promised to the member is now available and will be provided to Mr Peters today. More important I must make a correction to the first part of my response in that Ms Lowe has sat on 24 not 23 appeals to the Catch History Review Committee since January 1998. 
Questions to Ministers 
Sentencing—Get Tough on Crime Campaign 
1. MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: Does he stand by his statement to the House on Tuesday that “this Government is putting more people in prison for longer as part of its get-tough-on-crime campaign.” if so why? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 Yes. My comments were based on the Ministry of Justice annual update of forecasts of prison population released earlier this month predicting there will be around 7400 people in jail in 2010 an increase of 20 percent. The forecasts say that the predicted increase is a reflection of legislative changes such as the Sentencing Act and the Parole Act. Other initiatives undertaken by the Government such as more police and improved resolution rates are also having an impact on prison numbers. 
Marc Alexander 
: How does the Minister reconcile his comments with those of Brian Davis national organiser of the Corrections Association of New Zealand who has stated: “to suggest that the increase is due to the tougher sentencing is a nonsense.” and is not the real reason for this high demand the fact that the Government is actually doing less to reduce crime when it has cut rehabilitative programmes like Corrections Inmate Employment? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: The second part of the answer is just not true. When it comes down to the two of them I would probably prefer to rely on the information from the Ministry of Justice. 
Martin Gallagher 
: Does the Minister have any evidence that the worst offenders are now facing longer prison sentences than they otherwise would have in the past? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: The worst offenders are now receiving the harshest sentences ever handed down. Triple murderer William Bell last year received a minimum 30-year prison term and Bruce Howse was sentenced to 25 years non-parole. This year two double murderers Joseph Samoa and William Johansson have been given minimum non parole periods of 22 and 23 years. This shows that the Government has listened to the call for tougher sentences and acted. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: When will the Government move to reduce the huge costs of incarcerating prisoners and of building and maintaining prisons by ensuring that there are enough resources for adequate rehabilitation programmes in the prisons and by developing strategies to deinstitutionalise inmates on release in order to reduce reoffending? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Of course the Government would be looking to try to reduce the cost of prisons and taking people in and incarcerating them. Rehabilitation programmes are really important as the member points out and there are some discussions around the Budget that hopefully might show some light on these things in due course. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Is it a fact that despite the Minister’s claims the Department of Corrections itself is forecasting fewer sentenced inmates on average in virtually every adult inmate category this year and is it also a fact that under this Government’s legislation a rapist sentenced to 9 years in jail can qualify to apply for parole after only 3 years? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: In relation to the first question the Department of Corrections has certainly made similar predictions to what the member has said. However the Ministry of Justice is the official forecaster of figures done independently of me and I am sure the member would appreciate the fact that those figures should be done independently of the Department of Corrections and the Minister of Corrections. As far as the second question is concerned people can do a third of their sentences but the reality is that judges are now setting non-parole periods and offenders are not just being released automatically at two-thirds—unlike under that previous member’s Government. 
Ron Mark 
: How many of the people whom the Government anticipates it will imprison are people who have been released on parole—like Mr Jarden Mr Bell and Mr Carroll—and have gone on to reoffend and does he not agree that part of the problem is this Government’s rather lax attitude towards those people; and can he give the House an absolute assurance that the gentleman by the name of Abraham Neho who kicked a Mozambican refugee to death in Christchurch and has recently been released on parole having spent only 2 years in prison will not be another such person who goes on to reoffend and will have to be locked up again? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: The answers are: I am not sure no and I have not heard about that case. 
Stephen Franks 
: Can the Minister confirm that I have this right: that he is pleased that there are more people in prison locked up for longer; if so why does he not support truth in sentencing and lock up a whole lot more for a whole lot longer—in other words for the sentences the court gives them? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I cannot say I am particularly pleased that we are locking people up longer but we certainly are because that is what people are demanding. As far as the second question is concerned we think that the Government has got it about right. 
Marc Alexander 
: How does the Minister expect the public to believe his tough talk on criminals when the increasing use of home detention contradicts the whole concept of tougher sentencing because those who would otherwise go to prison are lounging around at home to save the Government money by keeping the number of incarcerated down? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Well it is hard to know how to answer that. As the member knows people are doing longer sentences as a result of this Government. Home detention is an effective way of not only incarcerating people at home but also reducing reoffending. It has very very good reoffending rates compared with people who have been in prison. What one needs in this particular portfolio is a balance of measures and that balance is being worked on all the time. 
Marc Alexander 
: How does the Minister reconcile his statement in the House yesterday that: “I think the Department of Corrections is doing a fabulous job in very difficult circumstances.” with the fact that in the past few weeks five Waikeria Prison officials have been stood down for physically bullying a fellow officer a second inmate has been found dead at Rimutaka Prison and Amnesty International has been asked to investigate the condition of State-run prisons and is it not about time he conceded that private prison management is doing a better job? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: The answer to the first question is “easily” and to the second one the private prisons have been doing a pretty good job but it is the view of this Government that the incarceration of people should be the responsibility of the State. 
Business—Growth Strategy 
2.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Will the Government reconsider its growth strategy in light of the “Business Herald” survey of small to medium business chief executive officers which showed that 94 percent of respondents were convinced New Zealand did not have a growth strategy to sustain business success? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 No. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Will the Government revoke its claim to be in partnership with business or will it accept the opinion of 70 percent of business leaders who say that employment relations legislation Treaty of Waitangi issues and holidays and resource management legislation as currently proposed by the Government will lower economic growth; and can we expect more U-turns on those proposals? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I cast the member’s mind back to 2000 when some of the same people said that there would never be another job created in New Zealand. The same people have been creating jobs ever since. 
Mark Peck 
: Has the Government received any reports on its policy direction from international agencies and what do they state? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Government has received a very large number of reports. For example the ratings agencies have raised New Zealand’s credit rating since the Government took office the World Bank rates us as one of the easiest places to start a business the OECD says that our compliance costs are not high by international standards and an IMF report out soon is expected to comment positively on the Government’s policy mix. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does the Minister agree with 79 percent of business leaders who say that unresolved Treaty of Waitangi issues are having a negative effect on economic growth and does he accept that Government dithering over the issue for the last 9 months has made the negative consequences substantially worse? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The foreshore and seabed issue if that is what the member is referring to is not at heart a Treaty of Waitangi issue. Apart from that none of those at the meeting I was at today could point out which Treaty of Waitangi issue had stopped them from hiring an additional person for their business. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister cannot assume that someone is asking something that was not in the question. I would have thought that although the Minister did eventually come to an answer that vaguely related to the question he was asked he should have begun it in that way. Mr Speaker I think it is unacceptable that you allow a Minister to start an answer with an inference. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If I did not allow that I would be ruling out about half the questions and half the answers. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Perhaps you should start. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member previously invited me to toughen up a great deal on an issue. I was very appreciative of that. I will take note of what he has said. 
Mark Peck 
: How has New Zealand’s growth rate compared with that of other OECD countries since this Government took office? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Growth in New Zealand equalled the OECD average in 2000 and has exceeded it in every year since. As I said this morning this survey of a somewhat hand-picked sample shows the triumph of lack of hope over experience. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Is the Minister surprised that the opinions of the 75 percent of industry leaders who suggested that Treaty of Waitangi issues are holding up growth in the New Zealand economy are in line with the advice that he got from Treasury last October when he was told exactly the same thing; and does he now regret not doing more about settling some of those issues when he had a chance 6 months ago? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I think it is very important to settle Treaty of Waitangi issues both historical and ongoing ones. The one sure way of making certain that that does not happen is to try to pretend that the Treaty of Waitangi does not exist as the Opposition does. 
Supreme Court—Judges' Tenure 
3.  
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
 to the  
Attorney-General 
: What are the tenure arrangements for judges appointed to the Supreme Court? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
 on behalf of the 
 Attorney-General 
: Judges of the Supreme Court like other judges have permanent tenure until the age of 68. They can be dismissed for incapacity or misconduct on a motion of Parliament but this has never happened. The system emphasises the independence of the judiciary and the strong convention that judges are not subject to political manipulation. 
Darren Hughes 
: Can judges also be removed by legislation? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: No judge has ever been removed by legislation. However if appeals to the Privy Council were to be restored as promised by Dr Brash on the  
Holmes 
 programme the Supreme Court would have to be abolished by legislation with the loss of what are widely acknowledged to be the best legal minds in the country. That would be bizarre although we might find some sort of precedent for that in Zimbabwe. 
Richard Worth 
: Is the Attorney-General not aware that in a number of Western democracies courts have been closed down and the judges reabsorbed into the legal system; and why would it be any different in this case because Supreme Court judges have tenure as High Court judges under section 20 of the Supreme Court Act? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: It is correct that Supreme Court and Court of Appeal judges—both categories of judges—have tenure as High Court judges but I assume the member is suggesting therefore that the five best judges in the country would be made High Court judges doing lesser cases. That is equally absurd. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: What bush lawyer gave him the advice that if the Privy Council were restored these people would automatically be lost to the judiciary system when that is not the case? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: There are five Supreme Court judges. If the Supreme Court were to be abolished the Court of Appeal is currently fully tenured by judges and they would have to become as the previous questioner suggested High Court judges. To suggest that the five most experienced and skilful judges in the country would become High Court judges is frankly a stupid idea. 
Darren Hughes 
: Would there be any other problems associated with the abolition of the Supreme Court? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Yes. Frankly that idea is absurd and unworkable. First and foremost it would rely on New Zealand regaining access to the Privy Council. Currently there are 15 countries with access to the Privy Council. When the small Caribbean States withdraw this year there will be five. Of those five Tuvalu and Kiribati have not had an appeal in 20 years and New Zealand trying to retie the apron strings to the United Kingdom would make us the laughing stock of the world. 
Accident Compensation Corporation—Rehabilitation Services 
4.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: What has been the total cost to the Accident Compensation Corporation in each of the past 3 years for private providers of rehabilitative services such as Alpha Consultants? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 I am advised that the total cost to the Accident Compensation Corporation in each of the past 3 years for vocational rehabilitation is $19637000 for 2000-01 $24064000 for 2001-02 and $23221000 for 2002-03. Work preparation programmes commenced 14 months ago and expenditure was $910914 for the 2002-03 year. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can the Minister confirm or deny that private providers of rehabilitative services for the Accident Compensation Corporation such as Alpha Consultants are paid a bonus for every accident victim who is transferred from being a client of the corporation to being a client of the Department of Work and Income? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: No. I imagine that as is the standard case in Accident Compensation Corporation contracts the individual providers are given additional money if they have successful outcomes. Transferring a claimant from the corporation to Work and Income is not a successful outcome. 
Dave Hereora 
: Does the Minister have any information on the effectiveness of job skill programmes such as those provided by rehabilitative services such as Alpha Consultants? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The 6-week programmes focus on people’s psychological physical and vocational needs. According to a Waikato study of work preparation programmes undertaken in that area 65 percent or more are back in the paid workforce or actively job seeking within 3 months of completing the programme. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Why after 4 long years of a Labour Government are over 30 percent of long-term claimants dissatisfied with the Accident Compensation Corporation and what is she going to do about the corporation’s standards and quality control that have allowed vulnerable injured people to be subjected to bizarre treatment and non-professional providers? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I agree with the concerns of the member that having only 83 percent of claimants satisfied with the corporation is not enough and I intend to continue the improved level of claimant satisfaction that has been shown over the last 4 years. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: How does a woman with a bad shoulder need a teapot of salt water up her nose and how many reports are there of accident victims who found that nonsensical treatment such as she received so degrading they could no longer bear to attend those courses—and as a result the Accident Compensation Corporation no longer has to pay them the compensation they are rightly owed? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: As was confirmed in the radio interview with Dr David Rankin from the corporation this morning that particular practice was not appropriate for the provider to be offering even though it was on a voluntary basis. The majority of claimants on that course voluntarily asked to use nasal irrigation and subsequently continued to use it privately but that practice is no longer being continued by that provider. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does the Minister seriously expect us to believe there are New Zealanders out there volunteering to have nasal spray up their noses from teapots of salt water; and more important is that not just an attempt by the Accident Compensation Corporation to shift people from its books on to another department’s books and why is she allowing this practice to continue? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: As the member will know a number of New Zealanders do suffer from sinus irritation and that treatment is considered one of the non - drug-related treatments helpful to people. The majority of claimants on that course voluntarily undertook the treatment but it is not considered appropriate for the provider to be offering that treatment within the funds provided by the corporation and the practice has now stopped. 
Primary Students—Compulsory National Testing 
5.  
NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Tainui) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Has he received any reports on the compulsory national testing of primary school-aged children? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Yes I have seen reports that England will drop compulsory testing for 7-year-olds because it is too stressful for young children and teachers. Research shows that the introduction of national testing leads to a dumbing down of education and puts young children through unnecessary stress. It can result in teachers preparing pupils just to pass tests rather than giving them a good understanding of what they are learning. 
Nanaia Mahuta 
: What are the effects on children of compulsory testing and what is the better alternative? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: A survey of parents in England found that two-thirds of 11-year-olds showed signs of stress in preparing for the tests. Students were reduced to tears and lost sleep. A much better alternative is the world-leading literacy and numeracy test AsTTle introduced by this Government. AsTTle assesses students’ knowledge and gives parents and teachers rich information about how students are doing against national standards. AsTTle also enables teachers to then properly target their teaching to address any weaknesses. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Is the prime purpose of assessment to enable parents to make simplistic comparisons between schools—as some would have it—or is it to provide insight into how well children are progressing relative to their peer group and to suggest the most appropriate learning activities in order to facilitate further progress? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Certainly the latter. I think the key is to think of it as assessment for learning rather than assessment of knowledge. 
Question No. 4 to Minister 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to table a  
New Zealand Herald  
article of this day where a participant in the Accident Compensation Corporation programme is calling the programme degrading and wanting to know what would happen if he suffered from bowel problems. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Spring Hill Prison Waikato—Iwi Consultation 
6.  
RODNEY HIDE (ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: Why did he dismiss barrister and solicitor Irene Kereama-Royal’s letter as the concerns of a “disgruntled former employee” of the Waikato Raupatu Lands Trust and how many people from each marae attended the hui for the planned Waikato prison paid for by the Department of Corrections? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 I did not dismiss her concerns. I received her letter in July last year and looked into her claims. I was advised that her concerns related to among other things her lack of involvement in the consultation process and an internal employment dispute within the Waikato Raupatu Lands Trust which is still unresolved. With regard to the numbers of people attending marae hui I am advised that over 700 Tainui people attended such hui. 
Rodney Hide 
: Did the Minister rely on his own department for that advice; and why would he not treat seriously the claims of a woman of her experience and qualification that his own department had bought off a select group of Maori who had no mandate to represent their people to push this prison through? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I did not just rely on Department of Corrections’ officials; there was direct discussion with Tainui. I think it is important for the member to know that the Tainui parliament Tekaumarua voted to enter into a consultation agreement with the Department of Corrections and mandated the Waikato Raupatu Lands Trust as the consultation agent. That is significant in that there was a high level of support given to consulting with the department. 
Georgina Beyer 
: What scrutiny has there been of the consultation process to date? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Independent environment commissioners appointed by the Waikato District Council and Environment Waikato heard 17 days of evidence at a public hearing on the Spring Hill prison application at the end of 2002 and the beginning of 2003. Those commissioners accepted both the department’s evidence and the adequacy of the consultation process. This case is set down to be heard again in the Environment Court in May. I consider that people have had ample opportunity to have their views heard on this issue. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: What action will the Minister take regardless of the veracity of these particular complaints to ensure that under his watch consultation with tangata whenua is a genuine attempt to find out what they think rather than an expensive means of picking who agrees with the department? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I reject the last part of the question. The consultation on this issue has been very wide and extensive. 
Deborah Coddington 
: Can the Minister confirm that his officials knew by December 2001 that Mr Tom Moana was being charged with fraud yet continued to contract him through to April 2002; and that Tom Moana received $131000 for attending just four hui? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: As far as I have been advised the facts that the member points out are correct. It is one of the issues I am looking into as part of a report that is due to me shortly from the department. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Can the Minister confirm that when he made his comment that Mrs Kereama-Royal was a “disgruntled former employee” he was unaware that the personal grievance happened after she had first written to the Minister; and is the Minister able to give the House an assurance that no consultancy fees as listed on the schedule that he tabled in the House were actually paid to people who were at the same time employees of the Department of Corrections? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I was advised that the person who had written to me in July had already left and my understanding was that there was already an employment dispute going on. As far as the second question is concerned I have been advised that there was a clear separation between people employed to organise hui and those who had contracts with the organisation but that is another matter that I am looking into as part of the report. 
Ron Mark 
: Can the Minister confirm that one of the people at the heart of this controversy Mr John Hamilton of Jagcon is the same person who was investigated in 2001 as a result of his gaining a $200000 contract from the Department of Corrections 2 days after he had left its employment; and that he also is the person who was accused of offering Mrs Beadle $150000 to drop her objections to the Ngawha prison and who was overheard by Department of Corrections staff to have said when preparing to go to Waikato: “I wonder how many beads and blankets this will take.”? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I have not heard those claims and make no further comment on them. As far as the first question is concerned I am aware that Mr Hamilton was involved as a former employee and received a contract. When we look at the complexity of the nature of the work that is going on with four new prisons being built around the country I think he is doing a good job. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: In light of the Minister’s claim on radio this morning that paid consultation with iwi is a requirement under the Resource Management Act will he advise the House which section of that Act he was relying on because I believe that his Government is shovelling out millions of taxpayers’ dollars when no such requirement exists under the Act? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The final comment was not part of the question. It was just a remark made. The first part was the question and can be answered. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Under the Resource Management Act consultation is required with local Maori. I think it is sections 5 and 6—I am not sure—but there is certainly a requirement. It has been part and parcel of the Resource Management Act since 1991. 
Rodney Hide 
: Can the Minister confirm that for the Waikato prison $1.3 million was paid to Maori for consultation and a very small sum—and perhaps the Minister can tell us what it was—was paid for Pacific Island consultation; but no money was paid to any other group for consultation; if so how come Maori get $1.3 million and everyone else gets next to nothing? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: For a start funding was paid to a large number of consultants including lawyers tax accountants etc. A lot of consultation was undergone. However the whole issue is now under consideration by the Government. 
Rodney Hide 
: Could the Minister give a date when he will be receiving this report from the Department of Corrections and given that it is Mr John Hamilton who has overseen the payments and bullying that have gone on through the resource management planning process that has been revealed does he not think it appropriate that someone independent be brought in to make the investigation particularly given that the Minister has been kept in the dark apparently by his own department? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: No and no. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question asked for a date. I do not understand how saying “No” can be addressing the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There were a number of legs to the question and the answers to two of them could have been “Yes” or “No”. The Minister chose to answer those two. He is entitled to. 
Rodney Hide 
: My question and you can go back to  
Hansard 
 asked for a date. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I always allow two questions to be asked. If members add stuff if they add legs to the question then of course the Minister can comment in the way he did. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask you to think very seriously about the rulings you are giving that allow Ministers to escape off the hook at question time. I believe that in giving those rulings you are bringing this House into disrepute. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am not. I take full advice on all those sorts of issues and the member knows full well that I did so on this occasion. I certainly did not do that and I object to the member’s comments. He will now stand withdraw and apologise for the implication he made at the end of his question. 
Rodney Hide 
: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The problem is this. Time after time we come down to this House to ask supplementary questions. It is not a matter of whether the answers address the question; they do not even come close. But you always give rulings saying that that is satisfactory. The public of New Zealand do not think it is satisfactory. It might be OK sitting in this Parliament to say it is satisfactory but I suggest that if we want Parliament to be treated seriously by the people of New Zealand then we have to be—[ 
Interruption 
] There we go again. I am interrupted all the way through a point of order and you do nothing. What is the point? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I refer the member to Speakers’ rulings 141/5 and 141/6. Indeed you have been very generous. You have allowed two questions to be asked in a supplementary question. The traditional Speakers’ rulings are that only one question should be asked—Mr Speaker Arthur in 1984 and Mr Speaker Algie in 1963. The member asked a question then added two more questions and expected to get three answers. Well two is greater than traditional tariff. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If members ask multiple questions they run the risk of Ministers answering the parts that they regard as less important. They have to tighten their questions. As far as I am concerned I have probably been more lenient and generous about the asking of questions than any preceding Speaker that I have heard in the time I have been in this House. 
Child Youth and Family Services Department—Cases 
7.  
JANET MACKEY (Labour—East Coast) 
 to the  
Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF) 
: What is she doing to ensure multiple-agency care placements are managed effectively? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF)) 
: 
 Last week I had the pleasure of launching a memorandum of understanding between the Department of Child Youth and Family Services and five social service agencies that will ensure that no multiple placement to the same caregiver occurs without the consent of all the agencies involved with that caregiver. 
Janet Mackey 
: How does the memorandum of understanding affect those who are placed in care? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The memorandum of understanding sets down clear procedures to safeguard the interests of the person being placed in care and preserves the integrity of an existing placement. It also ensures that information is shared between agencies and improves the support offered to caregivers which in turn will have a positive impact on the quality of care. 
Katherine Rich 
: How will this initiative if at all reduce the over 5300 children on the unallocated case list waiting to see a Department of Child Youth and Family Services social worker and can she assure the House that as a result of the present review of that department no child will be deleted from the unallocated case list without personal contact being made with the child or the family first? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: That supplementary question gives me the opportunity to correct an incorrect figure that was given to the select committee this morning. The figure of around 5300 was not correct; it is around 4700. In answer to the second question that member received a categorical assurance this morning from the acting chief executive from the acting general manager social worker operations and from me as Minister that there is no intention no directive and no action to delete inappropriately from the unallocated cases. It is irresponsible of that member to continue to allege something that she received an assurance this morning is not correct. To repeat something that is not true does not make it any more true. 
Judy Turner 
: Does the Minister agree that this multi-agency accord is a good start but it simply does not go far enough to address the more imminent concerns of Department of Child Youth and Family Services staff and other agencies that there is a dire shortage of caregivers available in the first place such as those required for 17 children in Southland as at 6 March this year; if not why not? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Yes I do agree that this memorandum of understanding will not directly address that. But it will certainly offer more support for caregivers and reduce the confusion and overlap that there is currently between multiple placements. 
Question No. 6 to Minister 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to table the letter from Irene Kereama-Royal that the Minister dismissed as a matter of personal grievance. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that letter. Is there any objection? There is. 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I might advise that the Minister requested me on radio this morning to seek leave and I suggest that I seek it again. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Does the member have the writer’s permission? 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I am saying that the Minister invited me to table— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is irrelevant as to what happened earlier— 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Yes—big say on the radio but not now. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is one word away from leaving. He is lucky I am generous. Leave was denied and that is all there is to it. 
Business—Economic Policy 
8.  
JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he believe the Government’s current economic direction has the endorsement of the business community; if so what evidence does he have to support his view? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Some surveys show that business is not putting its mouth behind the Government but the same surveys also show that business is putting its money behind the Government by continuing to invest expand their enterprises and employ more staff. The member must decide which is the more important. 
John Key 
: Does the Minister think that the Government is failing in its self-proclaimed top priority to “engage with business leaders” when only 2.8 percent of businesses surveyed think the Government’s business partnership model is working; if so what does he intend to do to improve this statistic? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Putting aside the question of who actually hand-picked the sample I refer to where seven times the number of businesses were going to engage in more capital expenditure than less over the next year 11 times were going to engage in more information technology expenditure than less over the coming year and more than four times were going to increase their staff as opposed to reducing it. I will be satisfied if those numbers continue year on year into the long-term future as I remain Minister of Finance. 
David Parker 
: What does the  
New Zealand Herald  
survey show about business intentions over the next 12 months? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It shows as other surveys have shown a very positive outlook in terms of expenditure on new capital equipment on information technology and on new staff. Those are the things that actually count for ordinary New Zealanders—jobs and incomes. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: With regard to an endorsement of the business community what was the comment made last Wednesday at the announcement of a certain party’s policy on business and could he regard that as a ringing endorsement or otherwise?—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Would the member repeat the question? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Having regard to the issue of an endorsement by the business community has he received any reports as Minister of a policy that was first announced on Wednesday last week and could one regard those reports as signifying a ringing endorsement or otherwise? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: In so far as the reports are concerned the Minister may comment. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have indeed received reports including reports from business leaders that state that last year Dr Brash said that lowering the top tax rate was crucial to growth and last week he said it was not so important after all. This morning in front of the same people he reaffirmed that he was going to lower the top tax rate in the first term if he got the chance—a double U-turn! 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister indicated to the House that he had reports that would back up the comments he made. Members on this side of the House know that what he said is absolute drivel and wrong. We would like to see the reports he is quoting. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order I can rule on and the member knows that. 
John Key 
: Does he expect that his comment this morning that business leaders are “curiously ill informed” will help the confidence of the 82.2 percent of business leaders who think the Government’s partnership with business is not working; and does he acknowledge that it might be better for the Government to start listening rather than criticising its so-called partners? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I think it is useful if everybody listens. When business people tell us that more of them think the immigration policy is negative than positive when all their leaders have been praising the immigration policies followed by this Government clearly listening is a two-way process. When business tells us that we are not doing enough on bilateral trade agreements and the Chinese Ambassador announces that we were probably first in line for one they clearly are not listening. 
John Key 
: Does he stand by his comment this morning that “rational analysis has recently been absent from the general tenor of business comment”; if so how does he then characterise the advice he received from his own Treasury department which echoes the call of businesses for lower tax rates to improve investment and economic growth? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I note that when this Government put up the top tax rate it was told that it would stop economic growth in its tracks. For 4 years in a row we have equalled or exceeded the OECD average in the same way that under President Clinton 8 years of continuous economic growth followed an increase in the top tax rate yet President Bush lowers it and has one of the worst results in terms of 2 years of economic decline. 
John Key 
: Does the Minister acknowledge that a statement from business leader Rod Deane that “compliance costs are just becoming formidable” is consistent with all the advice given by the Small Business Advisory Group on that topic and if he will not listen to business Government-established advisory groups or his own department Treasury who on earth will he listen to? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I shall answer that with another question. Will the member or anybody listen to Rod Deane private citizen senior businessman saying that there should be less regulation or Rod Deane the chairperson of Telecom saying that there should be more regulation to protect that business? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will now ask the Minister to address the question. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I would suggest that Mr Rod Deane as he has long done in many cases often speaks from self-interest. 
John Key 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek some clarification. Will it be normal that Ministers will be able to make comments and general statements before they actually answer questions? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No and that is why I made him answer the question. 
John Key 
: I seek leave to table the summary of the chief executive officers’ survey of small and medium businesses in New Zealand that shows amongst other things that 94.1 percent of all New Zealand businesses do not believe that this Government has a growth strategy. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I seek leave to table the same survey which shows that the vast majority of businesses are more likely to be investing in growth for the future than disinvesting. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to table authoritative business opinion as a result of last Wednesday’s announcement which proves that they have found it totally underwhelming. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that. Is there any objection? 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek clarification then. We do not want to block the member tabling something. Of course every member should be able to table something when he or she wants to. Unfortunately the current member has a well-established habit of seeking to table something the House grants him leave but he never fronts up with it. I wonder whether we can have some assurance from him that that portfolio of comment will be tabled. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: My challenge to Gerry Brownlee is this—if I table the evidence which I will will he resign from Parliament? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think that is one all. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
International Arts Festival—Domestic Representation 
9.  
DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East) 
 to the  
Associate Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage 
: How did the Government support the presentation of New Zealand works in the 2004 New Zealand International Festival of the Arts? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Associate Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage) 
: 
 Over the past 4 years the Government has significantly increased support to Creative New Zealand Te Papa the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra and the Royal New Zealand Ballet all of which supported or presented works in the festival. Creative New Zealand specifically supported 12 productions in the festival and gives ongoing support to at least six further organisations that participated in the festival which in turn makes a huge contribution to Wellington and to New Zealand. 
Dianne Yates 
: What reports has she received on the impact of increased Government support of the arts on the New Zealand programme in the festival? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: As a result of the major funding boost to Creative New Zealand the Black Grace Dance Company has been made a full annual client of Creative New Zealand. That company tells me that the extra funding it now receives allowed its choreographer Neil Ieremia to develop more substantial work that received critical acclaim attracted the interest of international media and attracted festival bookings from agents at the festival. It has also had great reports from its attendance at the Perth International Arts Festival. So arts can be exported as well. 
Dianne Yates 
: What is the value of the New Zealand International Festival of the Arts to New Zealand? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: The financial information for this year’s festival is not yet available but in 2000 the International Festival of the Arts generated $39.7 million for the Wellington region. It also makes a huge contribution to tourism to audience development and artistic excellence. International media and festival booking agents also attend it. It is contributing a great deal to our economy. 
Foreshore and Seabed—Iwi Consultation 
10.  
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Justice 
: Will Maori co-management of the foreshore and seabed which she stated “will be addressed in the bill” to be introduced on this matter “in the near future” still include enhanced participation options including devolved management membership on hearing committees and the establishment of whanau hapu or iwi committees? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) on behalf of the Associate Minister of Justice 
: 
 Legislation will provide for the relationship between the recognition of ancestral connection with the foreshore and seabed and its management under the Resource Management Act. Details will be announced at the appropriate time following completion of the policy. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: If the forthcoming bill does not include all of those things that I mentioned what in fact would be left of the Government’s proposals of December what could have been done to secure the votes of the Maori caucus or has the Government simply written them off and is relying on New Zealand First? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There are three questions there. Two may be attempted. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: New Zealand First has yet to receive a full briefing on the policy and has made no position clear in terms of the Government’s legislation in this respect at the Maori caucus committee; but it certainly has shown an intelligent interest in the matter unlike some parties. The Maori caucus committee has been well consulted on these matters. The one thing that does require change immediately is the National Party’s website on the issue which is a tissue of fabrications. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: Will all New Zealanders be able to enjoy their existing rights of access to the foreshore and seabed under the Government’s proposed legislation? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes. 
Metiria Turei 
: Is the Minister aware of any examples of management over coastal areas being devolved to Maori under section 33 of the Resource Management Act a similar process to that outlined in the Government’s foreshore and seabed proposal? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes I think there are some examples. I think Sir Hugh Kawharu has referred particularly to the examples that involve his own people and they have worked well as far as everybody is concerned. 
Stephen Franks 
: Given the answer to Mr Mapp’s first question which was “Wait for the bill.” is the Government discussing co-management or membership of committees or the other matters Dr Mapp raised with any Maori outside this Parliament; if so when will the 85 percent of other New Zealanders be invited to comment? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Government is continuing discussions with a large range of groups including public access groups groups like Fish and Game and so on outside Parliament. There have also been direct discussions with a number of Maori groups notably Ngati Porou who hold a particularly special position in terms of their relationship over a long period of time. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: When the legislation is finally introduced will the Minister confirm that all of the measures contained within it will then be referred to the special select committee that has been established and that everyone who has an interest for or against any of its provisions will then be in a position to make submissions on those matters and have those heard by the select committee? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes. It is intended to refer the legislation to the special select committee. There is no intention to place a special time limit on the hearings of that select committee. We expect obviously a large number of submissions and when the member has been here a bit longer she will learn that select committee process in New Zealand actually is an important process of consultation with the wider community. 
Stephen Franks 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister has outlined a number of groups that appear to be informed of the matters on which Dr Mapp questioned. When we consider the answer Dr Mapp was given and the answer that a number of Ministers have given over the last few days or weeks which is effectively “wait and see” or “wait for the bill” could you rule on whether that is an adequate answer when it makes it plain that this House is almost the only place where Ministers will not tell what is being proposed or how the conversations are developing? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: As the member well knows or should know I do not rule on the adequacy of answers. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: When the Minister of Maori Affairs referred 2 weeks ago to co-management of the entire coastline surely the Minister acknowledges that that is quite different to the section 33 Resource Management Act process which relates to very narrow parts of the coastline and therefore surely the bill will have to be narrow to avoid the statement of the Minister of Maori Affairs? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I assume those are questions and I will rule them in. “Surely” is not quite a question word but I will allow it to be considered. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: In most of the country the foreshore is a particularly narrow part of the coastline but going beyond that fact what will be provided for is the ability for a range of involvement to occur. What would be appropriate in some areas would not be as appropriate in other areas and that is the reality of what happens at the present time in many circumstances. 
Metiria Turei 
: Given the Minister’s answer that existing Resource Management Act processes are working well what then is the point of the Government’s proposal which sets up an additional and very costly process for achieving exactly the same outcome as the Resource Management Act and will the Government consider instead resourcing the existing processes for Maori and local government to work together better? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The latter issue is a legitimate one and the Government has indicated a desire to try to improve practices in that respect but it would need movement on both sides to achieve efficient outcomes. On the former matter I am afraid I must give the member the same answer: she will have to wait until the policy is finalised before I will be able to comment more clearly on that. I do not think she will be too disappointed with that part of the outcome. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can the Minister confirm in the interests of public information that every precedent or example of management where Maori are concerned—with regard to Maori having a right of management control and interest—that is in the legislation today was put there by a National Government? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I can indeed in terms both of the Resource Management Act obviously but also in terms of some specific matters in relation to treaty settlements. I am surprised the National Party seems to be completely denying its past in that respect. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Does the Minister’s answer to my last question mean that Maori will have co-management in some way over the entire coastline as was requested by the Minister of Maori Affairs? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: As I said the legislation will provide for the connection between the recognition of ancestral connection and its relationship to the procedures under the Resource Management Act with the regional councils obviously having the final say in matters. 
Genetically Modified Food—Liability 
11.  
IAN EWEN-STREET (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Agriculture 
: Will the Government follow the lead of the United States state of Vermont and introduce legislation that holds biotechnology corporations liable for unintended contamination of conventional or organic crops by genetically engineered plant materials; if not why not? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Associate Minister of Agriculture) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Agriculture 
: 
 No because we already have liability provisions now. 
Ian Ewen-Street 
: Is the Minister saying that in the event that a conventional or organic crop becomes contaminated by GE pollen or plant material the biotechnology corporations should be able to sue individual farmers for unintentionally growing the corporations’ seed; if so why? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: No I am not saying that. What I am saying is that under the current provisions of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act the strict civil liability rule enables individuals who may claim that they have been harmed by GE crops to seek compensation without needing to prove negligence for harm caused by activities involving those new organisms. Those liability provisions are in place for individuals who may feel they have been detrimentally harmed by those crops. 
Jill Pettis 
: Does the Minister have confidence in the system put in place for deciding whether GM crops will be planted? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: Yes. The system was devised after a comprehensive royal commission investigation into genetic modification. GMOs cannot be grown in New Zealand without the approval of the Environmental Risk Management Authority and all applications are considered on a case by case basis with consideration given to the national interest. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: If it is the Government’s intention not to allow local government units any say on whether GE crops are grown in their territories why does the Government not spell that out clearly in legislation rather than putting local authorities at risk of making a decision based on the recent Dr Royden Somerville advice and then facing huge litigation costs? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: My understanding is that local government will not be liable in any way for any such claims of liability. 
Ian Ewen-Street 
: Is the Minister aware that Western Australia is to ban the growing of all genetically engineered crops in that state so that its farmers will obtain a market advantage for their crops and why is this Government unwilling to give New Zealand farmers a similar advantage? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: This Government considers that there may be advantages in the technology in the future. That is why it has put in place a very robust process of consideration through the Environmental Risk Management Authority where all the interests of producers in the country—both now and in the future—will be considered before any approval is given. 
Ian Ewen-Street 
: In that case would the Minister support any move by New Zealand local authorities to protect their local farmers and provide economic advantage to their region by declaring themselves to be exclusion zones for the growing of GE crops; if not why not? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I think it is considered by all that we do not know enough about all the aspects of GM. That is why we would not expect local authorities to have the wisdom to make such decisions and thereby to make themselves liable for them. That is why at this point they will not be liable. The decisions will be made by the Environmental Risk Management Authority and the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act currently has liability provisions within it. 
Ian Ewen-Street 
: Can the Minister name one genetically engineered food product that could be produced in New Zealand for which there is any consumer demand in any of our major export markets? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I am not a market expert. There are a number of crops grown internationally—canola maize soya beans—that all have market potential. In Spain the market price for GM and non-GM maize is exactly the same. There are market opportunities for those crops and I am sure the member will be conscious of that. 
Students—Support 
12.  
BERNIE OGILVY (United Future) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education) 
: Does he stand by the principles enunciated in last year’s discussion document that the system of student support should ensure “equity and fairness” and “consistency with the wider social assistance system”? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
 on behalf of the Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education): Yes. 
Bernie Ogilvy 
: Does he think that it is fair and consistent with the wider social assistance system to maintain the parental income thresholds for student allowances at 1992 levels which were set at $28079 of combined parental income to qualify for a full allowance and which is in today’s salary terms the equivalent of $38166; if so why? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The Government is committed to improving the student support system. As the Prime Minister indicated in her statement to Parliament: “This year’s Budget will provide for more students to qualify for allowances from the 2005 academic year.” I think that I can go that far without breaching any Budget secrecy but it would be inappropriate to go any further. 
Bernie Ogilvy 
: Does the Minister think that it is fair and consistent with the wider social assistance system to require student allowances to be based on parental income until students are aged 25 when parental income testing is not applied to those aged under 25 who are on the dole and who might be just as reliant on parental support yet in comparison are getting money for doing nothing? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I can see the member’s lack of comfort with this situation. One of the things one does in Government is set priorities. To equalise by bringing the levels and requirements up and having what would effectively be a universal student allowance equivalent to the unemployment benefit would cost $5.5 billion over 4 years and frankly I can think of better things to do with the money. 
Question No. 8 to Minister 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Because the matter was raised by Gerry Brownlee I want to make it very clear that I have tabled four lots of evidence to support my request for leave; and will Gerry Brownlee resign? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member knows that that was not a point of order. 
Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I move  
That the Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. The bill was referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee on 10 December 2003. The select committee received over 100 submissions and undertook a very thorough consideration of the bill. It reported back to the House on 22 March recommending that the bill be passed with the amendments shown. I thank the select committee for its timely work on these complex matters. The Government accepts the committee’s amendments although I am looking at some technical issues that may result in Supplementary Order Papers at the Committee stage. 
It is essential that the legislation be passed as soon as possible so that the water allocation framework for the Waitaki River can be developed and so that the consents currently on hold and awaiting determination can be processed. 
The bill comprises four parts and two schedules to amend the Resource Management Act. It aims to improve decision-making powers for allocating water in that catchment. A large number of competing applicants want to take water from the Waitaki but there is no regional plan to guide the allocation of that water. The bill proposes to establish a water allocation board to develop a water allocation framework for the catchment followed by a panel of commissioners to decide the significant resource consent applications. The bill enables the board to compare and assess the merits of competing categories of water use and the panel to do a similar job on competing applications for the use of water. 
The select committee was concerned to underline the independence of the water allocation board and panel of commissioners and has recommended the removal of the Minister’s power to issue procedural directions to those bodies. The committee has recommended that the board and panel have between three and seven members each and that there be appointment criteria for both. It also recommends that specific grounds for dismissing members be included. The select committee has recommended that the panel of commissioners comprise members appointed by the five local authorities of the Waitaki region. 
 Other proposed changes to the bill include increasing the time for the board to draft the water allocation framework from 8 months to 9 months with the Minister for the Environment able to grant a 3-month extension; clarification that competing activities are compared at the local regional and national levels; and removal of the term “national perspective” and clauses 27 and 31. Other technical changes were made to make clear that Resource Management Act principles and procedures generally apply to the development of the framework and consideration of the applications and to clarify the relationship between the framework which becomes a regional plan and other Resource Management Act planning documents. 
I want to comment briefly on key elements of the changes recommended by the select committee. There was never any intention that either the board or the panel be subject to political interference. The power to issue procedural directions was intended to cover matters of administrative business. However I consider that the board and panel can deal with these matters through their power to regulate their own procedures. I am therefore comfortable about the proposed deletion of clauses 9 and 37. I welcome the proposal that the legislation set out criteria for appointing board and panel members. These criteria would have been developed in the course of considering nominations and seeking Cabinet approval for members and I have no objection to their being spelt out in the legislation. Similarly I am happy for dismissal grounds to be set out in the legislation. This simply codifies standard practice. 
I also support the recommendation that the term “national perspective” be deleted. Although it is important that the legislation explicitly require decision makers to consider costs and benefits at the national as well as the regional and local levels the words “national perspective” are not already used in the Resource Management Act and they carried some risk. I am satisfied that the new tests set out in clauses 20 and 42 will achieve the intended outcome. 
I would like to comment on the effect of this legislation on existing consents and to respond to concerns that have been expressed about this. Nothing in this bill is intended to alter the rights of existing consent holders to operate their existing consents. The water allocation framework once operative is simply a regional plan and as such is forward looking. In allocating water under the framework the board must consider any de facto allocation created by existing consents but is not bound by that de facto allocation and it may allocate water to whatever uses it considers most beneficial. However as with the development of any other regional plan where the water may be currently allocated by consents the allocation will not be able to override existing consents and will therefore not have effect until those consents expire except through any review of consent conditions. Any such review is to be conducted under the existing provisions of the Resource Management Act and will be a review of conditions for environmental matters only. If necessary I will consider introducing Supplementary Order Papers in the Committee stage to clarify this. 
The technical changes to the bill simply clarify the intention that the Resource Management Act principles and procedures will apply. 
I look forward to this bill receiving wide-ranging support in the House this afternoon. Although I think some of the parties that will support this legislation today do not agree with every aspect of the bill they know it offers a better solution for the applicants and for the community. Like the Government they are concerned to secure an improved process for deciding between the applications. This is in stark contrast to the National Party and the ACT party which would sooner put party politics ahead of any improved process. It is their strategy to whip up discontent with anything associated with the Resource Management Act even to the detriment of the people on the ground. 
Some weeks ago in this House I spoke about the Government’s approach towards the environment which is to engage with individuals communities and businesses to work through problems and find solutions. I contrasted that with the National Party’s desire to create division between environmental and business interests to pitch business against the environment. The Resource Management Act (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill is a perfect example of these two approaches. The Government introduced this bill to improve the process for decision making down in the Waitaki and as we shall see this afternoon there are others in this House who agree with our approach. Right through the process the National Party has screamed that we are fast tracking Project Aqua as the Government’s pet project while making other businesses use normal Resource Management Act procedures. The truth—and the National Party knows it—is that this process comes out of a special set of circumstances and treats all applicants publicly and privately owned equally. Yet National insists on trying to stir up this division for its own political ends. But National is isolated and will just look foolish. Other parties in the House would not vote for the bill if it favoured Project Aqua or any other application. 
This bill is about solutions and an improved decision-making process for the people in the Waitaki and those with applications to take water from the river. I am pleased it will receive widespread support in the House and I look forward to the bill passing through its remaining stages. 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 The Minister was right. National does not support this legislation. We strongly oppose it because it is some of the most appalling legislation that has been written since I have been in this House. Let us be absolutely clear about it—this legislation is being designed essentially to fast track Project Aqua. We agree with the Minister on that; that is what it is about. And she is right—we are going to scream about it because it is absolutely wrong. This legislation would not be happening if Meridian Energy the architect of Project Aqua were not a wholly owned subsidiary of the Government. What is happening is deplorable and it needs to be exposed for what it is. It is a sham; an absolute sham. 
Rather than rewrite the rules for its own narrow purposes the Government should take heed of what most New Zealanders are telling it. They are telling the Government that the Resource Management Act is appalling legislation. Yes it is well intended. I accept that its authors set out with good intentions but the actuality is that the Resource Management Act is the biggest handbrake on growth in living memory. So instead of fast tracking legislation for its own company the Government should be doing what most New Zealanders want and that is a total rewrite of the Resource Management Act instead of cherry-picking it.In fact it should take an axe to it. That is what the next National Government will do. We will fix it once and for all. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: That’s for sure. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Absolutely that is for sure because that is exactly what we intend. There is no doubt that this country needs more electricity generation. That is not in dispute. But we are dealing with a complex issue and this Government cherry-picking the Resource Management Act is not the way to deal with it. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: It’s not cherry picking. It’s more like rotten-fruit picking. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Rotten-fruit picking—I will take that. It is probably just as good an example. 
Back in 1990 Geoffrey Palmer sounded this warning when he was talking about the Resource Management Act: “In Part 5 there is provision for statements of Government policy to influence directly the way in which local government will undertake its functions. However these are not statements for particular projects and they are not the National Development Act in disguise.” Clearly the Government was keen to distance the Resource Management Act from policy making in respect of particular projects then but the inherent contradiction in what is happening now is not lost on me. The special legislation as I have said is to fast track Project Aqua and skew decision making in favour of that particular development. 
This is the worst kind of political expediency. I favour development—yes—but that development smacks of a Government picking winners just as the Government of the Muldoon era did. Some members of the Government who are in the House now were around in that era and they were the ones who cried “Foul!” the loudest. Where are they now? Why do they not get up now and say: “If it was wrong then it is wrong now.”? In fact I am looking forward to the mystery man Mr Parker getting up and taking a call to explain his position on this issue as it relates to Otago because down in Otago they wonder where he is. They can never find him when they want him. In fact I do not think he even lives in that electorate does he? This will be the real test of whether he will show some leadership around this issue or whether he will just do the Government’s bidding. He knows that what is being proposed is wrong. 
The next question I pose is: why are appeal rights to the Environment Court on Project Aqua not the same as they are for other resource consents? We are told that this special legislation will truncate appeal rights on the basis of saving time. Who believes that garbage? Who believes when one is dealing with the Resource Management Act that whatever one does will save time? That Act is the biggest handbrake on growth. Mr Parker should stand and take a call and tell the House exactly what the Government is going to do about it. 
This would not be happening if Meridian Energy were not the Government’s pet. Let us be absolutely clear about that. Farmers and small-business people have to comply with every step of the Resource Management Act but not the Government’s favourite State-owned enterprise. The Government is prepared to make exemptions and exceptions for that enterprise. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The member appears to be alleging an inappropriate conflict of interest on behalf of the Government and implicitly of shareholding Ministers. He will be aware that the  
Cabinet Manual  
provides appropriate processes for dealing with those matters. If he has a privilege matter to raise he can raise it in the normal way but it is absolutely inappropriate during debate in the House. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Speaking to the point of order I say that that is clearly a debating issue and the member knows it. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I agree with the member that it is a debating matter. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Meridian Energy is sounding all sorts of warnings. It tells us: “We have consents on the Waitaki River and we are concerned for our rights.”—but how easily the company has forgotten about the rights of some of the local farmers. Meridian has objected to small applications for water rights in the Upper Waitaki Valley and that reflects poorly on the company and on a Government that allows it to happen time and time again. 
I can tell this House that I have seen a legal opinion from one of New Zealand’s leading legal firms that says the Upper Waitaki farmers are entitled to 15 cumecs of water—as guaranteed and protected by Order in Council in 1969. What is more the same Order in Council provided for more water as irrigation development in the area was warranted. The Electricity Corporation as it was called at the time in 1990 chose another route. Although I am not suggesting that it acted illegally I am saying that it acted immorally when it ignored the Order in Council and in doing so defeated the clear intention of the Parliament at the time. 
I have seen headlines from the time when the Minister—and I cannot recall his or her name—said there would be water available for everyone including water for irrigation. The person in charge of the Electricity Corporation at the time—the person who defeated the intention of Parliament—was Keith Turner. He knows he deliberately disenfranchised farmers—and they have long memories. They also now have a quality legal opinion to back that up. They will not be steamrolled twice. 
This Government is under pressure and when it is it reverts to type. Government members just could not help themselves. Inserted in this bill is a provision for special treatment of Maori. Clauses 8(1A)(d) and 36(2A)(d) deal with that. They state that in appointing the board the Minister must give special consideration to members who understand Maori customary values and practice. No other ethnic group gets that type of special consideration. I can tell this House that when we have a new National-led Government this crowd will not get that type of preferential treatment either. 
There is no doubt in my mind that we have to solve our electricity generation problems if we are to develop as a nation. In my opinion the use of coal of which we have nearly unlimited resources is just a matter of time. Burning brown coal using new technologies is effective and environmentally acceptable. And of course it is sustainable. 
 We need to think longer term about how we can generate electricity rather than the short-term projects that are on offer at the moment. The argument that will be offered by some is that coal is too expensive vis-à-vis water. Of course all that does is underline the Government’s stupidity in rushing to sign and ratify the Kyoto Protocol because if we do not have a carbon tax it is pretty much a line ball—a National Government will fix that. 
I will finish by inviting Mr Parker to get on his feet take a call and explain exactly how he will position what the Government is trying to ram through this Parliament with undue haste with the wishes and concerns of the people living in the Waitaki valley. He knows—or he should know—that there are people there who are deeply concerned about the use of water and all they are asking from this Government is to get a fair shake. At the moment it is clearly not happening. This legislation—it does not matter what the Minister says—will simply drive this matter through the House with undue haste. I say to Mr Parker that this is the real hallmark of whether he has 60 more flights coming back to this place or whether he may be coming back longer term. This is his moment of glory because it is now his opportunity to stand up and take a leadership role. 
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
: 
 Responding to Mr Connell’s remarks is always a bit of fun. The last press release he put out concerning this issue about a month ago accused me of not paying attention to meetings that were being held in my electorate at which Ministers were present. Mr Connell obviously was not there because I was chairing the meetings. 
Darren Hughes 
: He’s their rocket scientist. 
DAVID PARKER 
 He is. The lack of ability shown by that member really defies belief. How he got here I do not know but he is here so I will respond to some of the suggestions he made. First of all the suggestion that this bill empowers or speeds up Project Aqua is arrant nonsense. Were this legislation not before the House and had the consent applications not been called in by the Minister the applications for Project Aqua would be under consideration now and finished within the next few months. The single and only appeal to the Environment Court would probably have taken place later this year and be finished towards the end of this year or at the start of next year. This process is far slower and has far more protections for those who are either in favour of or opposed to Project Aqua. 
I thank the members of the committee who worked very hard over a short time frame to turn this legislation into better legislation. I include in my thanks the National members Sandra Goudie and Nick Smith the New Zealand First member Jim Peters Jeanette Fitzsimons from the Greens Larry Baldock from United Future and my own colleagues from the Labour team. I think we all worked very constructively to produce what is high-quality legislation. 
The legislation does not change underlying Resource Management Act principles—it changes processes. It is necessary to do that because there are at present around 60 applications to take water from the Waitaki River. If they were all granted the Waitaki River—one of New Zealand’s biggest rivers—would virtually run dry. There is no water plan for the Waitaki River despite the fact that it is one of New Zealand’s largest rivers. About now those planning decisions would have been taken by a planning authority in the absence of the guidance that ought to be provided by a water plan. Both of the regional councils agree that some statutory intervention is necessary. So do many of the submitters and it is interesting that since this legislation has been reported back to the House even some of the vehemently opposed interest groups like Waitaki First have come out and said that they approve of this legislation. 
I also think that people should judge the cries that this is empowering Project Aqua against the position that the Green Party has taken on the legislation. The Green Party has been very clear that it is absolutely opposed to Project Aqua and that is its right. Yet despite the Green members’ strident opposition to Project Aqua they agree that the legislation is appropriate. They would not be agreeing if they thought that the effect of this legislation was to fast track or empower Project Aqua. 
In terms of the rights of Meridian Energy Ltd the suggestion that this bill somehow favours Meridian Energy should be judged against the criticisms that that company has made of the legislation which it says does not adequately protect its existing rights—including its rights in the upper catchment. One of the recommendations of the select committee which the Government is adopting is that clause 31 in the original form of the bill be deleted. Arguably that clause did in a minor way further entrench the rights Meridian Energy already holds concerning power stations in the upper catchment at Benmore Aviemore Waitaki Ohau etc. The committee recommended the deletion of that clause so that the underlying Resource Management Act principle applied without any modification. 
As the local member I am absolutely satisfied that I have protected the local interest well against being overridden by the national interest. There were a couple of words in the purpose section and also in clauses 20 and 42 that caused submitters concern. Those words have been removed. The purpose clause concerned the strategic allocation of water and clause 42 dealt with the national perspective. Submitters had concerns that the effect of those words was to give some hierarchy to economic outcomes that might flow from Project Aqua to the detriment of environmental values or indeed other irrigators. Those concerns have been addressed by the removal of those words. 
The select committee has also limited the powers of the Minister to give directions to the boards that hear these planning issues so that there can be confidence that these Environment Court - like panels are not subject to political influence. I am absolutely satisfied that this is appropriate legislation that protects my electorate and is far better than the status quo that existed before it. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 This bill has been substantially rewritten by the Local Government and Environment Committee. I want to thank all the members for their work towards a much-improved bill. I think it is significant that when we came to deliberation all of the members of the committee voted for all of the amendments even though some of them still voted against the bill itself. We have worked cooperatively I believe in order to get the best possible outcome. 
The primary issue the committee had to consider was whether there was justification for setting up a new process to deal with water allocation in the Waitaki River which would amend the Resource Management Act yet again. The Resource Management Act is supposed to deal with those issues. The answer to that question has to be a very limited yes but not to the extent the bill provided when it was introduced. At present no one has set an environmental flow regime for the Lower Waitaki. No one has decided how much water is needed to provide for the habitat of wading birds the integrity of the wetlands the trout and salmon fishery the recreational opportunities the landscape and scenic values. These are broadly summed up in the Resource Management Act as intrinsic values of ecosystems and amenity values appreciated by humans. Data exists on those values but they have not been assessed and provided for. Now we have applications for the right to take water for irrigation and hydro which together total more than the water in the river. 
It is true that this bill would not have been put forward if Project Aqua had not applied—not I believe because there is some way that this bill favours Project Aqua but because if Project Aqua were not there we would be able to continue allocating some water without getting anywhere near the levels that would threaten those in-stream values that have not yet been provided for. That is why we need the bill. 
How can those applications be assessed without first setting an environmental flow regime? If the argument were only between farming and electricity at the resource consent stage the easy solution would be to partition the river between them and leave the river itself out of the calculation. But the Resource Management Act makes it clear that ecological integrity is paramount. No decision maker could do a good job of providing for that in the time frame allowed to issue resource consents. 
The Act assumes that a fundamental basis of the legislation is that applications for consent are assessed against a pre-agreed plan. There is no plan so the Greens strongly support the need for a delay while a plan is put in place—both to provide properly for the river itself and then to allocate between the end uses of electricity and farming. If this bill does not proceed that cannot happen. Without this bill the process would be that these applications which have been called in under the normal process of the Resource Management Act would be assessed by a board of inquiry appointed by the Minister. The board would make recommendations to the Minister who would make the decision. This board would not have the independence from the Minister that we have recommended here nor the powers status and expertise that we recommend be given to the board setting the framework. 
So a process for producing a water plan for the river is essential. But that is the only way in which this bill should derogate from the principal Act. This should not be a place for trying out the ministry’s new ideas for future amendments to the Resource Management Act. The bill should not be a Trojan Horse for that. It should not truncate the process just because the Minister wants a fast decision. 
There are many provisions in this bill that are about speed rather than quality and we have changed them. For example we were advised by everyone who commented on the issue that 8 months is far too short a time for the board to develop the framework for water allocation. Confining it to 8 months risks sacrificing quality for speed and would not allow time for all the relevant data on the river—and its flows habitats and uses—to be collected analysed and incorporated. So we recommend up to a 50 percent increase in this time frame—a 1-month increase as of right and a further extension of 3 months if it is needed which I am sure it will be. 
The committee took the view that we would remove all the derogations from the principal Act that were not essential and that wherever possible the issue should proceed under the normal Resource Management Act process. This has involved a lot of changes and we will revisit those in greater detail at the Committee stage. Of particular importance is the requirement in clauses 20 and 42 that the plan and consent applications be considered from a national perspective. This raised an outcry from the local community which considered quite fairly that as the national perspective can already be considered under Part 2 of the Act this must be giving it particular weight over and against their local needs. That is not what sustainable management of resources is about. 
We also received evidence that national perspective does not occur elsewhere in relevant legislation and would result in a challenge to its meaning in the higher courts. That is perhaps why the Government has agreed to our recommendation to take it out. The weighting of national and local interests must still be done but done according to the principal Act unchanged by this amendment. For the same reason we have removed the word “strategic” from clause 3. We could see no good reason why the section 32 test in the principal Act which requires decision makers to justify their plans and rules as the most appropriate should be weakened in this case. 
Clause 21 introduced a watered-down requirement for accountability. We have removed it and ensured that section 32 applies to the extent relevant to the matters being considered here. We also could not see any good reason for the Minister to appoint the panel of commissioners who will hear the consent applications. This is a routine function of regional and district councils and they often have joint hearings now. All that was needed to ensure that time was not wasted was to require them to appoint a joint panel and to give it the power to consider all the applications together and comparatively so that is what the bill now provides. 
We have clarified that other relevant planning instruments such as the coastal plan still apply. We have removed clause 31 which would have given a higher degree of protection to existing water rights than would be the case under the Act. We have brought the requirements for public information and provision of documents into line with the Resource Management Act. We were determined that the board and the panel would have no special privileges or exemptions other than those necessary to do their job of getting the plan out. 
There remains one serious departure from the Resource Management Act and that is the question of appeal rights. Normally references on a regional plan would go to the Environment Court but the bill provides for no appeal to the Environment Court on the framework which has the status of a regional plan. I can understand the Government’s reasons. Sixty-odd applications have been held up for some months under call-in and will be held up another year before a hearing can begin and many of them will be quite small applications to take water for farming. These people have been denied the normal pace of a hearing and the Government does not want them to be further delayed by appeals that could in some circumstances take another couple of years. 
But taking away rights of appeal is a serious matter and four of the parties in the select committee noted that they did not believe that there was adequate reason for it. I will be moving an amendment to restore those appeal rights. However in the knowledge that the Government has the numbers on this issue we proceeded to ensure that if there were to be only one hearing it would be of the highest quality. We have therefore recommended that the board be given all the powers status and expertise of the Environment Court so that the job is done right from the start. 
First we have distanced it from the Minister by removing her right to sack its members and give them directions. We have set criteria on which she must appoint to ensure all the necessary skills are covered. We have increased its membership to between three and seven because two is clearly not enough. The board will have the powers of inquiry cross-examination and taking evidence on oath. While there is still one hearing rather than two we believe it combines the best features of both parts of the normal process. 
The bill provides for an Environment Court appeal from consent decisions but to a limited extent. Such appeals will be given priority in the court’s timetable and I have to say that I do not think that that is a problem. If they had proceeded without the delay of the board process to set the framework they would have entered the appeal stage earlier anyway so they are not really leapfrogging other cases. The bill also provides though that new evidence cannot be given except by leave of the court which is likely to be given if it could not reasonably have been presented to the first hearing but probably not otherwise. The evidence already given at the first stage will not be re-heard unless it is challenged. 
I see a problem with this as a very truncated process is being adopted only for these projects. Therefore I will move an amendment on that as well. National is declaiming about process and departure from the Resource Management Act but it is clear that its only concern is that it wants a truncated process like this all the time for everyone. 
So I turn to Project Aqua. To claim that this is a fast track is wrong. Compared with the normal process it is a slow track. National knows that without this bill the hearings would already be under way—that Project Aqua would be more likely to proceed because there would be no minimum flow. The Greens are totally opposed to Project Aqua which wrecks our largest braided river in order to perpetuate our energy waste. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak to the second reading of the Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill. As a former teacher of history I think a very recent glimpse of the bill’s history may be of some value to us in this debate. 
In mid-August last year the Government announced its intention to decide the resource consent applications for the Waitaki River in order to reduce costs and uncertainty and to address conflicts between competing users. The Government was concerned as were the people of the Waitaki Valley about the applications by Project Aqua 7; by Irrigation North Otago which would take up to 27.5 cumecs to expand irrigation in North Otago; and by the Aoraki Water Trust which would increase irrigation in South Canterbury by using 15 cumecs from Lake Tekapo. However in addition to those applications for substantial water takes there were 51 other resource consent applications to abstract water or to use water being processed by Environment Canterbury. Nine of those applications were from Meridian Energy Ltd to roll over its existing water permits for its hydroelectricity system in the Waitaki River catchment which had been granted under the former Water and Soil Conservation Act of 1967. 
The Government announced that it had decided in principle to allow changes to the Resource Management Act to enable all potential and expected users of Waitaki River water to be considered together and that allocations were to be made on what was considered best for the region and for New Zealand. It also indicated that that would occur in a submission process for those parties interested in having their say. 
On 2 September last year the Minister for the Environment announced there would be an amendment to the Resource Management Act to provide for a statutory body to determine a water allocation framework for the Waitaki River catchment. That body would consider and hear submissions and could undertake its own inquiries and make its own final decisions. There would be no appeals to the Environment Court on that body’s final decisions on the water allocation framework but there could be appeals on points of law. So late last year we had brought before us the bill we are debating today. In the process the Minister formally called in 60 applications including the nine from Meridian Energy to roll over its water permits. 
What are the substantial issues that are the background to this bill? There are two issues: above the Waitaki dam the amount of water that should be allocated out of stream for non-hydroelectricity purposes needs to be determined and below the Waitaki dam many additional decisions are required about what the appropriate amount is to leave in-stream what can be taken from river and tributaries and what use should be allowed for the Project Aqua canal system to convey water for other purposes. In other words there are competing demands and major water allocation issues and options with regard to the Waitaki River catchment. There are abstractors including Meridian Energy that would divert water to another catchment or into storage and there are those who value the water in-stream. If there were sufficient water in the Waitaki River to satisfy all applicants there would be no significant water allocation issue. 
In that regard the demands for ground water are also relevant because of the hydraulic connections to surface water. There are a number of areas where the surface water flows to ground water and vice versa. There is also the exclusive use of water where permits are able to be used to abstract or use water and they are protected with regard to the right to take water from any other such permits. Those would normally form the body of content of a regional water plan. 
I want to pause for a minute so that we are fully aware of what a normal regional water plan is and with regard to Environment Canterbury where such a plan would be at in time. The plan would include such matters as the regulated minimum flow or flows or lake levels under which no abstractions can take place or where abstractions are restricted; the restrictions on the rates of use of water; the sharing or leaving of blocks of water in the stream above the regulated minimum flow—and that issue is before the courts in another place now—restrictions on the damming or diversion of water; caps on the amount that can be abstracted from the river including the allocation of limits to ensure reliability of supply for those consented abstractors; the freshes; abstractions of flood or high flows; the important matter of the reservation of water for particular users; public water supply; industrial supply; stock supply for farmers and other group members who have some rights of augmentation of their water supplies; the priority to or reservation for existing abstractors or users by defining the conditions of their water permits; the provision for water storage schemes; the renewal of existing resource consents including the amounts required as well as compliance with minimum flows and other restrictions; and lastly the reservation—or the priority of allocation perhaps—of water for hydroelectricity purposes. However it should be known that apart from giving security with regard to the granting of consents and setting an allocation limit there are no regional plans that I know of that give special reservation or priority of allocation of water for hydroelectricity purposes—and that includes the neighbouring Otago regional water plan. So those are the substantive issues major and minor that are before those who adjudicate upon the consents. 
What was in the minds of those who came to us? I will speak of their concerns very very quickly because of limited time. Keith Turner of Meridian Energy said that the bill did not protect existing water consent holders. He said that the problems this bill is intended to address exist only below the Waitaki dam and not above it. Business New Zealand and the Major Electricity Users Group contend that the prime aspect of the legislation should be existing property-use rights. They talked about the selective amendment of the Resource Management Act and in actual fact asked to wait until the Government some time in the future—and when that will be is a great uncertainty—had an overall Water Programme of Action. 
My old professor Ken Palmer of the Save the Waitaki group said that the omission of the appeals process represented a “major departure from principle”. He said that the policy of the bill we saw first was to outweigh the normal sustainable management purpose of the Resource Management Act. Last of all he said that the bill has an agenda that effectively endorses the development of hydroelectricity activities. 
David Henshaw on behalf of the Aoraki Water Trust said in contrast: “The allocation of water should involve balancing environmental national regional and local interests”. Those members who arrived from the trust called for a total catchment approach and called last of all for the honouring of the expectations raised in the 1969 Order in Council. The chairman of the Local Government and Environment Committee has already mentioned what I believe was the excellent work of the committee in making a day-by-day intelligent response to the issues raised by submitters. 
New Zealand First was conscious of the following issues in the bill. The Resource Management Act meant that applications were considered on a “first come first served” basis. Although Mr Palmer said otherwise in actual fact that is so unless there is a call for further information. This bill in the final report-back to this House provided for a water allocation board that is not at ministerial direction apart from its initial selection. It provides for a water allocation framework to be developed after public hearings with a very robust system of hearing submissions. 
New Zealand First gives support for this bill to pass on to the Committee of the whole House. We believe that this bill is much changed from the previous bill that came to the House for the first reading because of the excellent work of the Local Government and Environment Committee. 
We seek two changes to the bill. I said at the committee and I will say again that I am not happy with the whole selection process for the panel of commissioners. I also concur with the last speaker—the chairperson of the select committee—about the appeal process and that principle should be revisited in the Committee of the whole House. Our position is that the bill has always been about water allocation not about Project Aqua and that the panel of commissioners will hear submissions based upon the water allocation issues and will decide how that should be made. 
We agree that Mackenzie Country farmers do have rights. They had reasonable expectations in 1969 and those expectations have not yet been realised so they have a case. We believe that this bill provides for an independent group to devise an equitable water allocation framework for the Waitaki catchment. Utmost in that must be the future life of the river and the health of the river for this and future generations. We support the bill at this stage. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 The ACT party opposes this legislation in its entirety and I will come to the reasons for that later in my speech. At the outset I would like to comment on some of the Local Government and Environment Committee’s considerations and on its processes. The Minister Marian Hobbs made a plea in her speech for this bill to be passed as soon as possible and said that that was essential. That is really what this legislation is all about. Her own words confirm what we have always suspected—that this is the Government’s new “National Development Act” to streamline the passage of its pet project— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Wash your mouth out with soap. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: That was Mr Cunliffe the commercial genius of the alliance! 
This legislation is appalling. It was rammed into the House shortly before we rose for the Christmas period. The expectation was that the select committee would report it back at very short notice. I was ashamed and embarrassed during the select committee process and I do not blame the chairperson Jeanette Fitzsimons who did a particularly good job in chairing the committee unlike Mr Cunliffe whose chairing of select committees is pathetic and hopeless. The chair was as considerate as she could be but the constraints put on her by this Government were very unreasonable. Submitters who had travelled long distances from remote valleys—I am thinking of our hearings in Kurow—were not even given the courtesy of being able to tell us what they wanted to tell us. They had very truncated time frames—5 minutes—to try to explain what their concerns were. That is a very unsatisfactory process. 
 However the real issue is the question of why special legislation outside the Resource Management Act is needed when the Act was set up specifically for that form of allocation. Environment Canterbury has been in existence for 14 years. It was set up with that specific function with a statutory requirement to produce regional plans for things like allocating water; yet in the 14 years of its existence Environment Canterbury has failed to produce a water allocation plan. We all know that for much of the time water is scarce in the Canterbury Plains including the Waitaki catchment yet that statutory body having existed for 14 years has never brought down a water allocation plan. 
There is no doubt in my mind that this Government panicked. It knows it has a looming energy crisis on its hands. It has a fixation with renewables. That is why it is not looking at other options like coal to the extent it should be even though we know we have 1000 years of electricity generation in our coal reserves at competitive prices. But having signed on to the fundamentally flawed Kyoto Protocol this Government does not want to look at the coal option to any large extent. It would rather rush through a proposal that involves taking 75 percent of the low flow of the Waitaki River at Kurow and placing it in a canal for a distance of some 65 kilometres dropping through six power stations and generating some 455 megawatts of power. We certainly need that power but it will meet only 2 to 3 years of our expanding electricity demand. Project Aqua will not be coming on stream until 2008. By then we will already have expanded our demand way above what the plant will deliver. 
If we were serious about our looming energy crisis we would be looking at alternatives such as coal. With the Kyoto Protocol if the Government were serious it would leave the incentives as market instruments as proposed with the carbon credit trading system. But what did the Government do? Instead of leaving the incentive to plant more forest it nationalised the carbon credits of forest sequestration and is handing them out to its pet projects. It has given them to Meridian for its Te Apiti wind farm. And what has Meridian done? It has on-sold them to the Dutch Government. So the Government gets back the money as a dividend payment from a State-owned enterprise a Government-owned company. 
I tell the House now that the same is intended for Project Aqua. The Government will dish out a whole lot of the carbon credits it stole off the forestry sector destroying the economic instrument of a carbon trading system. Project Aqua will flog them off in a world market and the Government will get that money back. That is what is behind the Government’s intention to rush through that project. It is rushing it through with special empowering legislation—and it is thoroughly bad legislation; there is no question about that 
The select committee was quite concerned about a number of aspects. One was the Minister’s own behaviour. At the meeting in Kurow we were handed the Minister for the Environment’s newsletter. In it we read that the Minister had called for nominations to the allocation board under this legislation—even though the legislation has not been passed—trying to pre-empt the committee’s right to change it. We decided there should not be ministerial appointments yet the Minister pre-empted that and was out there calling for nominations. That shows the arrogance of that Minister. 
However my real concern about the bill—and the reason I say that this bill is fundamentally flawed and why ACT opposes it in its entirety—is that it is based on more bureaucracy and more central regulation and control. When it comes to allocating a scarce resource particularly water that has never worked. The mechanisms in the bill are not best world practice. Water scarcity is not new. It is increasingly new for many New Zealanders but around the world water is a very precious resource and there have been many many years of hard experience. Central government big government and administration schemes such as Mr Cunliffe advocates have never worked. In fact Mr Cunliffe attended a function in Adelaide with me last year where we had a graphic example of how to allocate water in a situation where it was scarce. It was in the Murray River. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Where’s the report? 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: Madam Speaker would you please ask Mr Cunliffe to stop interjecting from the cross benches. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Would the member not interrupt across the cross benches. It is very disconcerting to the speaker. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. He continued to do so during my point of order. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member will desist. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: It was quite clear in the Murray River case in Australia where with a known water crisis there has been a move to an allocation system based on clear tradable property rights and pricing mechanisms. The same applies in the UK now and in many other places around the world such as South Africa and various counties of California because it works. They get a better result. Rather this bill proposes to set up a politicised bureaucratic monstrous committee that will never get it right. Under that type of scheme one cannot get efficient water use because the allocation is decided by a bureaucrat through a politicised process—and it is “Use it or lose it.” 
If people had tradable water rights they would use the water efficiently in order to optimise its use and to make the best use of it. Irrigators told us that they could earn $50 billion for the country if they were given the water rather than it being used for electricity generation. How do we test that? There is only one way and that is through a pricing mechanism. Sure it can be complicated in that there are storage header tanks in the Pukaki Ohau and Tekapo lakes. Essentially they are just storage header tanks. But those provisions can be provided. For much of the year the price would be negligible because there is no scarcity. Often the river is in flood when there is any amount of water. For much of the year the irrigators are not interested in the water. The only times being talked about are those variable times that are very seasonal when there is a shortage and the only way to satisfactorily allocate a scarce resource is by introducing a property right that is tradable and has some value. This bill fails totally to do that. It is doomed to failure. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 This bill is of fundamental importance to New Zealand’s electricity supply future. Contact Energy presented to me last year a graph indicating that New Zealand could face a significant primary energy gap from around 2007—now just 3 years away—because of the rundown in gas from Maui and problems associated with the use of Waikato coal for electricity generation. The graph that was presented to me is truly frightening. It illustrates that without Project Aqua there may be a gap between electricity supply and demand beginning in 2007 and rising to a massive 11000 gigawatts by 2017 just 10 years later. Those forecasts should be of concern to all New Zealanders since they clearly indicate that unless we can bring additional generating capacity on stream within the next 3 years we will be facing an electricity shortage. Simply stated this is an issue of critical importance to the future success of the New Zealand economy. The mere existence of the graphs themselves is already putting upward pressure on electricity prices. As we get nearer to the beginning of the shortage itself prices will go yet higher so that as the shortages loom the ongoing viability of many New Zealand businesses will be threatened. At the same time residential customers will face increased costs and perhaps even shortages as they endeavour to heat their homes heat their water cook their meals and use their computers cellphones etc. 
Meridian Energy with its Project Aqua on the Waitaki River in the South Island has appeared as a kind of white knight to avoid this catastrophe. Its environmentally sustainable hydroelectricity scheme has the potential to reduce the gap I have outlined by a significant extent and at a price of around 4.5c to 5c per kilowatt-hour which is significantly cheaper than the known alternatives. It is clear to me therefore viewed against the background of the nation’s acute need for new electricity-generating capacity that Project Aqua is a scheme that should proceed in the national interest. I say “the national interest” because all New Zealand businesses and households will be beneficiaries. To me those realities are clear-cut. 
However as is frequently the case in the real world life is not as straightforward as that. Indeed in relation to water from the Waitaki River it could hardly be more complex. When it comes to water allocation consents Meridian Energy and Project Aqua are in direct head-to-head competition with a number of farming groups who are desperate for water consents so that they can irrigate farms. Taken together the potential of the irrigation schemes is in the hundreds of thousands of hectares. They therefore also have the potential to greatly boost—or make a significant contribution to—New Zealand’s agricultural exports. Accordingly the irrigation schemes are also of critical importance. To make life really complex the total volume of water sought from the Waitaki catchment by the applicants exceeds the quantity of water available even if we used all the water in the river—something by the way that is not intended. A minimum irreducible level of water must be maintained in the river so that its botanical fish and bird life can flourish. The environment comes first and only when all are satisfied in that regard can we move on to human recreational and commercial considerations—in that order. Therefore the second priority use of the river which is for human recreation in terms of fishing and jet boating etc. must always be assured. 
It is only after we have cleared those two hurdles that we come to the subject of this bill which is sorting out a means whereby the competing commercial interests can then be taken into account and decisions concerning water allocation made. It establishes a process specifically to determine and then to allocate water usage. It appoints both a board to develop a water-allocation framework and a panel of commissioners to consider consent applications within that framework and most important to allocate the water. In terms of the water allocation time is of the essence. The bill provides therefore for the framework to be completed within 9 months so that the allocation process can then proceed. Should Meridian Energy successfully gain consents for the water required for Project Aqua it will then be able to proceed with its scheme. If not it will be necessary for it to rework and downscale or possibly even to abandon the project. 
I fervently hope for the sake of New Zealand’s electricity supply that Project Aqua or at the very least a modified form of the scheme will go ahead. However if Project Aqua cannot proceed we need to know that quickly so that other probably higher-cost less sustainable and less environmentally friendly electricity-generation alternatives such as coal can then be speedily advanced. We are in a race against time. The clock will not stop and I have seen nothing yet to indicate that the graph is wrong that indicates clearly a gap in our electricity supply from 2007. 
United Future’s concern has been to ensure that the processes outlined in this bill will do a number of things including providing a level playing field on which the competing commercial consent applications can be fairly and objectively assessed. I say at this point that I agree with some of the points that Ken Shirley has made about moving to a market allocation system. However given the time frame we have had in front of us I believe that a lot of further work needs to be done on that perhaps tapping into the international models he mentioned before New Zealand is in a position to move to such an alternative. I think we should be open to it for the future but on this occasion sadly time is not on our side. This bill is also intended to ensure that the people appointed to the board and the panel have the requisite expertise and that the system of appointments is clear transparent and non-politicised. It is also intended to ensure that the end point the all-important allocation of the water between the various parties is reached as speedily as possible. 
It is United Future’s view that the provisions of this bill will meet those criteria and on that basis we give it our support and commend it to the House. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 In speaking to the Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill I too would like to acknowledge the work of the Local Government and Environment Committee. [ 
Interruption 
] It is all right. I should just stay on message and ignore that. I would like to acknowledge the efforts and considerable work the select committee did and I would particularly like to acknowledge the significant contribution of the Hon Dr Nick Smith. His contribution at the select committee was magnificent and I think that has been— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: The Hon Dr Smith. 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: The Hon Dr Nick Smith—yes I said that did I not? He did make a considerable contribution and he worked diligently to ensure that we made the changes we have made—but not all the changes that we would have liked to see happen. 
I would also like to acknowledge the work of the chair because I think her contribution in managing the whole process under such pressure with the time constraints we were under and the pressure we had to get this bill through was excellent. It could not be faulted given we could not extend the time frame any further. We were being pressured to report this bill back to the House and it was disappointing to us that this whole process has been fast-tracked for the reason enunciated in this House: the Meridian Energy project. Environment Canterbury has not had a water allocation model in the last 14 years. There was no pressure for that to come about because there was ample water in the river. It was not until Meridian Energy came forward with Project Aqua that there was suddenly a need to have this bill because we needed a water allocation plan. So the Minister in bringing this bill to the select committee and requiring us to put it through the process therefore put us in that position. I think it is to the credit of the committee that we worked so well on this bill because the changes had been incredibly substantial. One only has to look at the bill that came before the select committee and then look at it now to see the number of changes that have taken place. 
National welcomes the reduction in the powers of the Minister to sack members of the water allocation board. We also welcome the removal of the Minister’s power to direct the board on the process and to override the Resource Management Act. National also welcomes removing the clauses that would have enabled the normal and thorough analysis under section 32 of the Act to be bypassed when developing the water allocation plan. In addition we welcome removing the national perspective test for Project Aqua and also the transfer of the consent processing for Project Aqua from the Ministry for the Environment to Environment Canterbury. 
However in spite of the many changes that we have been able to make to the bill we still oppose it. We have consistently argued for reform of the Resource Management Act and we find it objectionable that the rules are being rewritten specifically for a State-owned enterprise project. We support many of the amendments to the bill that reduce the number of exemptions from the Act and the powers of the Minister to intervene in the process. However we still have significant concerns about key provisions. The first one is this: the board should have the same level of independence from the Government as the Environment Court and there remain in the bill conflicts of interest on the part of the Government as the owner of Meridian Energy. 
I refer to some of the specific provisions of the bill. Clause 8 provides that the Minister appoints the members of the board. The issue was raised earlier that one of the requirements for a member of the board is for that person to have knowledge of tikanga Maori and that Ngai Tahu customary values and practice are a part of that knowledge. It is interesting to note that Meridian Energy already has that knowledge on its board of directors. Sir Tipene O’Regan is I understand a descendant of Ngai Tahu and he is on the board of directors for Meridian Energy so Meridian Energy certainly has that knowledge available to it. Does that mean that while the Minister must have regard to the need for that knowledge she does not necessarily have to have someone on the board who has that knowledge? Or does it mean that another Ngai Tahu person will possibly be appointed to the board? There could be the interesting position of having a Ngai Tahu director on Meridian Energy and then perhaps a Ngai Tahu member on the board. So I find that could be an interesting outcome. The chairperson of the board will also be appointed by the Minister as will be the deputy chairperson. I see no reason why the board could not make those appointments itself. 
Turning to the rest of our concerns we believe that the principles under which Project Aqua and the other consents are to be considered are being skewed. Those consents should be considered against the unaltered provisions of Part 2 of the Act. Although those provisions are taken into account they are then extended in the bill in clause 42. So first one applies the principles and purposes of Part 2 of the Act and then one has regard in respect of each application to the economic and social benefits and costs of each taking use damming discharge etc. So there are some extended qualifiers that change the emphasis of Part 2 of the Act and National members have concerns about that. We believe that the Waitaki River will have a lower level of environmental protection than any other river in New Zealand and there is no justification for that. We were led to believe that not only by the qualifiers of Part 2 of the Act but also by the substantial changes that we had to address through the select committee process. There were changes with regard to section 32 and section 68(3) which is about taking environmental effects into account. That was excluded from the bill. The whole premise of the Act is to take into account and look after the environment yet section 68(3) of the Act is to be excluded from consideration in the formulation of the water allocation framework. 
Those are just some of the concerns that are part of National’s objection to this bill. We will be raising those matters through the Committee stage and I am sure that we will come up with some Supplementary Order Papers. I know that the Hon Dr Nick Smith will be very disappointed that he is unable to be with us today. He had a particular concern over the 1969 agreement and National members share that concern. We believe that the Waitaki catchment as defined in clause 4(1) of the bill does not fully take into account the upper catchment of the Waitaki because it is not a part of the Lower Waitaki water allocation process. We have major concerns around that. National would like to see that the water rights of those people above the Waitaki dam are taken fully into account and that the previous agreements made with the Government are honoured. We would definitely like to see that take place and we are hopeful that through the process of debating this bill we can reinforce that concern and bring about some change. Farmers and residents of the Mackenzie District have every reason to feel aggrieved at the way the promises made to them in the past have been dishonoured and they would like to see their water rights reinstated. 
Finally I would like to mention the hasty process on this bill. I quote the Minister: “…meaningful democratic participation at the local level is a principle embedded in the Resource Management Act.” Yet she has taken away the appeal provisions within this bill. Two speakers have already commented on that and National absolutely deplores that that provision has been denied to submitters in the water allocation process. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of State) 
: 
 We have had a couple of interesting contributions from members opposite and I would like to turn first to that of Ken Shirley. His clarion call for tradable property rights seemed at the very least to be swimming upstream in the Waitaki if not flying in the face of the wind as well. When we reflect on it what is wrong with the idea of tradable rights that guarantee the highest social value by virtue of the highest bidder? I say to Mr Shirley that the first thing we get is an upstream/downstream problem and that is typified by the Murray-Darling River system in Australia. If the water is used upstream—say for irrigation—and not returned then those downstream might not have access to it no matter how much they were prepared to bid. There are externalities for the community and the environment that are not priced in a tradable property rights regime. And there are all of those other problems of the “commons” all of which add up to a big fat market failure. 
That is why we have a Resource Management Act and in this case is why we have needed to work within its principles to adopt processes that are appropriate to the particular needs of the Waitaki Valley. Labour commends the work put in by the select committee which made a number of quite extensive amendments to the legislation in line with the principles that have been expressed. 
Finally let us turn to the contribution made a little earlier by Mr Connell for the National Party. As my point of order reflected I was disturbed that he alleged that Meridian Energy was getting special treatment from the Government because it was a State-owned enterprise. Were that true it would indeed impugn the office of shareholding Ministers and would amount to a breach of privilege claim. I suspect that Mr Connell should either put up or shut up. That is a completely inappropriate thing for him to allege. It demeans the excellent management team at Meridian Energy and it certainly demeans this Parliament. 
Let us be clear: this bill provides a non-discriminatory fair framework for all parties that have an interest in the water of the Waitaki system—for recreation fishing irrigation and electricity generation. It is because those interests are being appropriately balanced that Meridian Energy itself has concerns about the viability of its future rights. The National Party cannot have its cake and eat it too. It is either a sweetheart deal or it is an excessively punitive deal for Meridian Energy—it cannot be both. 
This is an excellent bill. It strikes a fair balance and it protects the waters of the Waitaki for both current and future generations. The Labour Party urges its passage forthwith. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this very important Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill. It was quite fascinating to hear the Hon David Cunliffe say that this is a non-discriminatory fair framework bill when it clearly transgresses the resource management process and clearly makes changes to the normal process that one would go through at the Environment Court. The stated purpose of this bill is to amend the Resource Management Act to enable the merits of competing water users of the Waitaki catchment to be considered and to establish a framework for the allocation of the water that will allow for sustainable development. 
There is no doubt that this area is hugely important for New Zealand. On the one hand we have enormous energy requirements and it is somewhat sad that the Labour Government has chosen to manipulate the normal processes in order to get its version of how the energy requirements of New Zealand should be settled. The other aspect of course is that there is huge potential for the use of irrigation in the Waitaki and the Waikeria valley areas yet we have a Government that is outstanding in this case for deciding that it is going to ram through a specific course of action against its track record in both the Resource Management Act and the Environment Court. 
I want to quote my colleague the Hon Nick Smith a very good member who is responsive to his constituents and who has listened to the people at the grass roots. What did he say in the first reading of this bill? He said: “This bill is an abuse of process and an abuse of power. It is the Government writing the rules to suit itself. It is offensive to all those New Zealanders who believe there should be one rule for all including this Government. That is why members of this National Opposition will oppose this bill.” 
I must accept that I was not a member of the select committee and I understand that some improvements have been made during the select committee process. The specific improvements that National welcomes are firstly those of reducing the powers of the Minister to sack members of the water allocation board. Surely this has to be one of the things that a Labour Government so intent on central control and so intent on manipulating the processes of well-established Resource Management Act consents needs to be curtailed on. 
We welcome secondly removing the Minister’s power to direct the board on process and to override the Resource Management Act; thirdly removing clauses enabling a normal and thorough section 32 analysis to be bypassed when developing the water allocation plan; and fourthly removing the “national perspective” test for Project Aqua. 
When we look at the bill a myriad of concerns remain. The very heart of our concern resides in the fact that the bill does not provide for normal Environment Court appeals. This is enormously rich considering that when it came to New Zealand’s largest dump at Meremere only half a kilometre from the Waikato River and 4 kilometres upstream from Auckland’s water supply it was Marian Hobbs Minister for the Environment who refused to use call-in powers in that situation. But in this case she is saying “No we will not do it there because it suits us; down in the Waitaki Valley with this Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment) Bill we will just change the rules to suit the Labour Government.” I wonder about the propriety of this process. 
The second thing is that the consent criteria are being skewed from those of any other resource consent. National has made it perfectly clear over the last few years that there are all sorts of problems with the resource consent process. We have the absurd situation in New Zealand where Beca Carter Hollings and Ferner have pointed out that in order to plan and build a road in New Zealand from go to whoa getting the bulldozers in it would take up to 7 years and they can do the same thing in Singapore in 3 months. 
It seems extraordinary that this Labour Government instead of making the Resource Management Act itself more efficient and effective chose to cement in processes that are just obstacles to the gaining of a resource consent. It has cemented in a whole variety of these yet on this occasion it chooses to make a specific bill for a specific situation that suits the Government. Then exemplified in this bill we have the situation where there is no attempt to ensure that historic commitments given to farmers in the Mackenzie Basin are honoured. 
I understand that Meridian Energy’s chief executive Dr Keith Turner said the bill did not appear to give any protection to existing rights to take water from the South Island’s Waitaki River. What did the Labour-supported Local Government and Environment Committee recommend? It recommended that a clause in the bill strengthening the rights of existing water consent holders be deleted. This is what Labour does—it just runs riot over those previous commitments that had been made to the land holders up there in the Upper Waitaki Basin. 
New Zealand certainly does face an energy crisis but the solution to it is undoubtedly best achieved by a fair set of rules for all. It is absolutely hypocritical of Labour which blocked private sector developments like the Dobson scheme on the West Coast to now be creating its own special set of rules. There is no doubt that an enlightened Government in this country would be looking for a win for the environment and a win for progress. 
 There is no case more poignant than the Dobson one where it could certainly happen. But in that case for ideological reasons this Labour Government said: “No. We will make it a ‘lose’ for the environment and a ‘lose’ for progress.” It is that sort of sentiment that has brought about its choosing to abuse the Resource Management Act and bring in this particular legislation. This is the Government that at the same time it is bringing in this special legislation for a project that suits it has ratified the Kyoto Protocol and is about to slap on a carbon tax that will significantly affect every New Zealander and every New Zealand business. This Government just does not think through a national plan of efficiency or fairness or an appropriate set of national strategies that are in any way visionary in terms of the crisis we have before us concerning energy. What absolutely astounds me is that the Government has brought in that carbon tax—or is about to and is determined to—on a premise based on total uncertainty. The National Party rejects this amendment that the Labour Government is bringing in. 
LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Labour—Mana) 
: 
 I am very honoured to stand to support the second reading of the Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill. I reiterate that the purpose of the bill is to provide for the Waitaki Catchment Water Allocation Board to be appointed and to develop a water allocation framework for the Waitaki River. The bill will require a panel of commissioners to be appointed to consider the consent applications together within that framework. 
The suggestion that this legislation is empowering or fast-tracking Project Aqua is clearly not so because the Greens support this bill—notwithstanding their opposition to Project Aqua. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 83 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 29 
New Zealand National 21; ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Bill read a second time. 
Business Law Reform Bill 
Second Reading 
Debate resumed from 23 March. 
RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 Several days ago I was speaking about this bill and my recollection is that I was talking about the significant contribution that small and medium-sized businesses make to this country and how critical it is that the business environment in which they operate is of such a character that they can flourish within it. Those businesses commonly employ 19 or fewer employees and they represent about 97 percent of all New Zealand companies. They employ 43 percent of all employees and produce 39 percent of all goods and services. 
National supports the Business Law Reform Bill and I note that this bill is an illustration of the use of an omnibus bill which I think should be encouraged. The relevant Standing Orders are Standing Orders 261 and 262 which certainly enable the passage of legislation that is remedial and worthwhile in its purport to be dealt with without the delay associated with the requirement that one bill deal with one subject. 
I was interested yesterday to read a comment in the  
New Zealand Herald  
reporting a poll that had been carried out by the accountancy firm Grant Thornton. That international firm had surveyed 6900 medium-sized businesses including 150 businesses in New Zealand. One of those poll results when the respondents were asked about the biggest constraint on the expansion of their businesses was that 45 percent of the New Zealand respondents answered that it was red tape. I guess I was not surprised at that because in the last few days the Hon Dr Michael Cullen journeyed to the Wairarapa to make a speech at a business breakfast and he was bold enough—or one could say rash enough—to post the speech on his website. In it surprisingly he advocates greater use of red tape and speaks about the advantage of red tape in this short extract: “Turning to the issue of compliance costs here again it is important to set aside the naïve view put about by some of my political opponents that the world would be a better place if there were no regulation of business.” He goes on to espouse the benefits of red tape and says: “The truth is we all benefit from regulation.” 
National welcomes this bill because it is a modest—and I would say only a modest—attempt to strip away some of the red tape that surrounds business activity. Indeed the commentary on the bill under a heading “Introduction” states the amendments are for the purpose of removing unnecessary compliance costs. A raft of statutes is referred to in the bill. I will not deal with them at any length but I note that significant changes are being made to the Distress and Replevin Act 1908—one of the older Acts on our statute book. 
Distress of course is a self-help remedy available to landlords of commercial properties which enables them to enter the property to seize chattels belonging to a tenant for the purpose of recovering rent in arrears. The word “replevin” refers to the ability of a tenant to retake the seized goods. That may happen in circumstances where either the tenant’s rent is not in arrears or the value of the goods seized exceeds the outstanding arrears. The changes made there which basically clarify the interaction between the Distress and Replevin Act and the Personal Property Securities Act are no doubt welcome. Changes are made to the Personal Property Securities Act and to the Securities Act. 
As other members have commented one of the more interesting changes made to the Securities Act is that for the first time it defines what a wealthy investor is in terms of both assets and income. There are also complicated provisions introduced by Supplementary Order Paper 152 relating to the void and voidable allotments of securities issued by foreign issuers. 
That is all very well. Those changes will no doubt be welcomed and to some extent they make policy adjustments in terms of the bargaining power of the various parties to multiple commercial transactions. But I express the wish that this House become more seriously involved in the whole aspect of compliance costs because this type of bill is the ideal vehicle for those issues to be addressed. In December 2000 the Government set up a ministerial panel on business compliance costs. My understanding is that the panel made about 160 recommendations on ways to reduce compliance costs. Limited progress has been made in that regard. It is good to see some progress being made but it would be far better if there were much greater progress. 
More cynically since 2001 Cabinet has required that a business-cost compliance statement be completed for any proposals that have red tape implications for business. One of my tasks is to chair the Regulations Review Committee which looks at all secondary legislation passed by the executive. I would have to say that the work of the executive in the reduction of business compliance costs is to use a simple word pathetic—absolutely pathetic. Just for a start the  
Cabinet Manual 
 which deals— 
Hon Paul Swain 
: Oh! 
RICHARD WORTH 
: I am glad the Minister is here to make that timely interjection because it is important that he hears this. For a start in the  
Cabinet Manual 
 there are so many circumstances in which such cost statements are not required that the scrutiny obligation can be bypassed. 
What I would like to see us consider in a raft of initiatives to deal with aspects of compliance costs is the possibility of picking up what has been done in the Australian House of Representatives with the Australian Main Committee. I commend the House to look at that particular initiative. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of State) 
: 
 It is indeed a pleasure to rise in support of the Business Law Reform Bill and to follow the distinguished chairman of the Regulations Review Committee Richard Worth. This bill signifies two important things. The first—and this is something that the public listening to the radio broadcast of this debate in their hundreds of thousands may not appreciate—is that many of the processes in this Parliament are imbued with a strong sense of cooperation and this bill is one of them. By tradition this bill brings together a number of relatively non-controversial amendments that are designed to make business regulation work more efficiently and effectively. By tradition that is done through prior consultation with the various parties in the House and through taking a very bipartisan approach in the select committee. Clearly the Commerce Committee has done a good job on this bill. It has given us a detailed report and clearly the process of cooperation was working well as it should. 
Mr Worth mentioned the business compliance cost panel’s report which if I heard themember correctly contained 160 recommendations for ways in which the Government could reduce compliance costs—several of which are reflected here in this bill. It is important to note that since that report the Government has implemented or is implementing in the order of 85 percent of the recommendations representing in the order of 96 percent of the value contained the report. By anybody’s measure therefore this Government has been sincere about and successful at reducing business compliance costs. 
We are proud to bring this bill to the House. It is a small further step on the way towards making our laws more business friendly and towards reducing any unnecessary compliance costs and other impediments to business. I commend this bill to the House. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 In speaking on the second reading of the Business Law Reform Bill I should make it clear at the outset that National supports the bill for the good that it does. But I have to say that if the issue were not so serious one could not help but smile at the Commerce Committee’s introduction to the commentary on this bill. It states—and of course colleagues have already pointed out that this Business Law Reform Bill changes certain statutes relating to business; 13 of them in all—that this bill was designed to remove unnecessary compliance costs. What saddens me about that is the absolute lack of understanding by this Government and its Ministers of what compliance costs are all about. If we went along the Labour front bench today I do not think we would find any member who either runs a business today or has ever run a serious business in the past. If the Labour members think this legislation will have a significant impact on the compliance costs of running a business in this country they are deluded and are absolutely in a dream world. 
The issues that add hugely to the compliance costs of running a business in this country are the kinds of ones that came through my letterbox the other day. I do still run a small business and have done so for all the years that I have been in this Parliament. 
Darren Hughes 
: Does it make a profit? 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: It does not make much profit at all sadly; in many years it makes a loss. I have continued to run that small business even though it means a lot of hard work. On a Sunday afternoon when I would rather have a bit of a rest from constituency work and the work of Parliament I am involved in running that small business. The beauty of it is that everything the Government does to a business comes through my letterbox. I am the director of a private company and everything the Government does to a business comes through my letterbox. It used to be the same when National was in Government. I was able to tell some of my colleagues what we were doing to businesses’ figures because it all came through my letterbox. 
One of the most recent things to come through my letterbox was a little package about a centimetre thick which tells employers about their responsibilities as from 1 April this year—in about 6 days’ time—following the changes to the Holidays Act. Those issues are real compliance-cost issues and they are far bigger than the issues covered by this bill for small to medium-sized businesses. I would not mind betting that Paul Swain—is he the Minister responsible for this bill? No he is not. This bill is in the name of the Minister of Commerce so Margaret Wilson is now in charge of it. Goodness knows where she is. She does not seem to be particularly interested in either business law reform or compliance costs for businesses. Margaret Wilson is I guess the very Minister who has been responsible for the package of changes that employers will have to put in place in order to comply with the new holidays legislation. The survey of businesses in New Zealand that was tabled in this Parliament today makes it very clear that businesses up and down the country are desperately concerned about the whole issue of compliance costs. 
This bill while it is marginally helpful with regard to compliance costs does not address in any serious way the major compliance costs that are crippling businesses—if they can comply with them. The Minister in charge of this legislation Margaret Wilson is personally responsible for some of the legislation that it is impossible for small businesses to comply with. I can absolutely assure members that if any of the Labour Ministers ran a business or had any idea of what is involved in running a business they would not try to put through this Parliament some of the legislation that they have. It will not be possible to comply with the centimetre-thick package of responsibilities for employers following the passage of the Holidays Bill by this Parliament. 
It is fascinating to realise that if members of Parliament had an employer I doubt whether that employer could comply with those responsibilities. I think there is an interesting issue there around the compliance costs of running a business and employing people. Who employs members of Parliament? If there is an employer of members of Parliament I do not believe that employer is complying with the law. Nothing has come to me as a member of Parliament that indicates my employer is in any way complying with the requirements that I have to comply with as a business person who employs people in this country. That just shows in my view the stupidity of the compliance costs that this Labour Government is imposing on business up and down the country. 
The Minister of Finance stood in this Parliament today and chortled about how wonderful the Government’s relationship is with business and how wonderful growth has been under this Labour Government. The Labour Ministers do not seem to understand the issue of compliance costs at all; they have no feel at all for what is involved in running a business in this country. The introductory part of the commentary on the bill states that this bill is about removing unnecessary compliance costs. I can say as someone who runs a business that if we were to add up the total compliance costs associated with running a small business we would find the changes made in this bill would not even scratch the surface of those costs. 
Recently the Meat and Wool Innovation Economic Service a service of the new combined meat and wool boards put out its analysis of the movement in the input prices for running farming businesses—in this particular case it was sheep and beef farming businesses. I guess I happen to have an interest in that because I run one of those farms. In the last 12 months three of the four biggest increases in the costs of running a business have been Government charges. Again that is an example of the absolute lack of understanding by the Ministers of this Labour-led Government of business and of compliance costs associated with running a business. That analysis of running a farming business is not mine; it is from the Meat and Wool Innovation Economic Service. Its analysis shows that the biggest cause of increased input costs for the running of a sheep or beef farming business is Government charges. 
 We support the measures in this bill. Interestingly one of the Acts that is to be amended is the Personal Property Securities Act which this Parliament passed not so long ago. It is now being amended with this legislation. That shows the problem that occurs with regard to some quite complex law when things are done too quickly. The select committee did not understand the full implications of the Personal Property Securities Act and here we are having to amend it. I see the Minister nodding as he acknowledges that fact. I hope that with the changes being made in this bill the Parliament is getting that law right this time. I would not mind betting that 99 percent of the members of this Parliament do not know whether the changes made in this bill will actually work. I bet the ACT MP Stephen Franks has a very good idea about the details of this bill as does my very good colleague Richard Worth but not very many other members in this House would have much knowledge about it. I suspect my colleague Brian Connell also has a good knowledge of the detail of the bill but not many other members would. Parliament has to be careful when it passes law that is as complex as this and is not well understood. 
Finally I conclude by saying that this Labour Government has to get serious about reducing compliance costs. This bill while positive will barely scratch the surface of the huge challenge to be met if New Zealand business is to get ahead. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I rise for the ACT party to speak to the second reading of the Business Law Reform Bill. I say at once that we will vote for this bill on the basis that something is better than nothing even something as absolutely pitiful as this bill. This bill has been a very long time coming. Quite an interesting sequence of Ministers have had charge in this area—and we have now ended up with the Hon Margaret Wilson. None have had enough knowledge or authority to be able to persuade people that these are absolutely trifling matters and should proceed. So we have had the very long period of time during which New Zealand First was spooked by shadows and eventually we have reached this stage. 
The bits that I am interested in and on which I will comment on essentially for the record a record of sad failure are the changes to the Securities Act. They are absolutely hilarious if we look at what might have been. Very briefly the bill states that people who are wealthy or who are experienced investors can be allowed to go forward with an investment without putting the offer to the huge expense of the prospectus requirements. I know because that used to be my business. Typically complying with the offering requirements prospectus document requirements and the reports and sign-offs takes anything between $100000 and $300000 from the person who is proposing it and ultimately from the investment and the project. That is simply dead money the moment it has been spent. It does not add a cent in terms of return. 
We are now to take the very brave step of suggesting that wealthy people—with $200000 or more in wealth—and people who are experienced investors might just be trusted to appraise an investment without someone having first produced a prospectus. 
The next set of changes—and it would appear simple—is that the person who will decide whether they are experienced has to be an experienced financial service provider and he or she has to be satisfied that the person who will be entrusted to spend his or her own money can appraise the merits of the proposal can estimate value work out the risks and is getting adequate information. 
Next there will be a waiver of pre-prospectus publicity. A person can actually go out there in this world of free speech and say: “I’m thinking of putting together an investment and I can tell you a very few limited things about it without exposing myself to criminal sanctions.” That person can say what the name of the issuer will be give a brief description of the securities the rate of interest if any the total number the intended use of the subscription the terms of the offer the kinds of people to whom it will be made and the date. He or she cannot tell the most important thing—for example who is behind it who the directors might be who thinks it is a good idea or a bad idea what other businesses of that kind have performed where it might be risky and what their view is of the risks. In other words this is very lame. 
We have a very sensible exemption for employer superannuation schemes. I along with many others said 10 or so years ago that when the prospectus regime was applied to superannuation a lot of employers would say: “Flag. I don’t need that. We’ll do without it.” This is a mistake of securities law being remedied. 
Lastly there are the provisions to rescue the Australian issuers who have breached our law—Westpac and others. Let us look at these. What social purpose is this law serving? What possible value is securities law when it stops wealthy people or people with disposable income from deciding how to invest their money but it does not stop people from drinking themselves to death? We have no law that states people cannot climb mountains and kill themselves or ride motorbikes and kill themselves for the very obvious reason that people ought to be able to take those risks if they wish to. We have no law that states that people cannot gamble their whole estate on racehorses. We have no law that states people can buy a house only after it has been appraised by a valuer and that people are not allowed to throw their money away on a farm that will not produce. We have no law that states that a young person cannot invest his or her entire assets in a hot Japanese car a second-hand car or new car of any kind that will lose 40 percent of its value in the first year after a person buys it. 
We do not have a law that defines when people can marry or when they can have children. Can members think of anything more likely to affect their life chances and the value of their assets than having children? We have nothing that restrains having children. Indeed the Hon Margaret Wilson the Minister in charge of this bill as the Minister of Commerce now presides over a law that people with disposable income cannot be trusted to invest their income. Yet this Minister produced a law that without warning cuts people’s assets in half the moment they let their star boarder or the live-in boyfriend or girlfriend stay 1 day past 3 years. 
 In other words she automatically married people for property purposes cut people’s assets in half and overturned all the expectations that they and their families might have had in terms of what would be there to look after them in their old age and what might have been there to provide against sickness. All of that gets automatically cut in half the day after some boyfriend or girlfriend is allowed to stay longer than 3 years and with no warning. One does not have to have a prospectus. No one has to sign up. When the boyfriend turns up and offers companionship he does not have to say to the widow or the lonely mother: “If you let me stay I may well be able to bring an action even before 3 years are up and take half your assets.” 
But here we have this Government timidly saying that wealthy people and experienced people might just be allowed to make decisions about the investments of their own surplus money if they can get an experienced financial services provider to undertake that they are capable of making that decision. What a pathetic piece of reform! Securities law is a great big rort wherever it is. It works brilliantly for advisers. It works brilliantly for the people who publish prospectuses. It works brilliantly for the people who do glossy advertising. It works very well for accountants. There is no proof anywhere in the world that prospectus requirements and rules against pre-prospectus publicity make one blind bit of difference to the performance of financial markets. 
If anyone in this Government knew anything about business instead of signing up to even more onerous requirements from Australia they would be taking the money that has been wasted. I would guess from the number of floats on offer that this must be an industry worth $100 million a year from the advisory and other fees plus expenses. If they took a tiny fraction of that and applied it to enforcing the law against fraud and enforcing the Fair Trading Act against misleading and deceptive conduct and to chasing crooks a message would go out that would be of value to everyone in the commercial community. 
If they took a tiny fraction of what is wasted on securities law and on the Securities Commission’s pursuit of someone like the former chief executive of Air New Zealand one of Hawke’s Bay’s most successful businessmen who has been hounded because he dared to allow some wealthy people to invest in his business without jumping through these ridiculous hoops and spent a mere fraction of that on chasing the dishonest or beefing up the Companies Office investigating accounting resources instead of having a couple of overworked accountants—if they had five or 10 of them to chase fraud—we might have seen some practical reduction in compliance costs and some practical increase in commercial morality. 
Instead the Commerce Committee has laboured long and has not even produced a mouse. This modification of our prospectus regime is utterly hilarious and utterly pathetic. Here is a Government that has decided to push this legislationthrough. It came in under the Hon Lianne Dalziel’s name and is now under the Hon Margaret Wilson’s name. What commercial experience have those people got? How could they be put in charge of legislation like this? Well only because Labour has no one who knows anything about making money. None of them have ever made a buck on their own. They have always taken someone else’s salary and money and always used money with no risk. Those people presume to tell business what it can and cannot do in offering instruments for the investment of their own money. 
Bill read a second time. 
Maritime Security Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Associate Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I move  
That the Maritime Security Bill be now read a second time 
. The purpose of this bill is to establish in New Zealand a maritime security framework to detect security threats and take preventive measures against security incidents affecting ships or port facilities that serve New Zealand’s international trade. Since the terrorist attacks in the United States on 11 September 2001 New Zealand and the rest of the world has faced an increased global risk. The Government recognises that New Zealand’s relative geographical isolation does not provide immunity from the threat of terrorism. Historically the international maritime sector has not been as well advanced in respect of security systems as the aviation sector. To its credit however the International Maritime Organization responded quickly to September 11 and it took just over a year of intense work over 100 countries to develop and reach agreement on a detailed comprehensive and workable framework for international maritime security. 
The International Maritime Organization adopted the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code and the security-related amendments to the International Convention on the Safety of Life at Sea which is known as “SOLAS”. As a contracting party to the convention New Zealand is required to enact legislation to put the International Maritime Organization’s new maritime security framework in place. This new framework requires ships and port facilities to approach security with an increased level of seriousness to develop expertise to assess the security status of their operations and to come up with an auditable plan to manage security risks. 
Ship and port facility operators will be required to undertake security risk assessments. The purpose of the assessment is to identify what the security risks and vulnerabilities are for that particular port or ship and to form the basis upon which to develop appropriate security plans to reduce the risks. 
The Government Administration Committee considered this bill and has submitted its commentary to the House. The committee recommended that the bill be passed with the amendments proposed. I would particularly like to thank the committee for the priority that it has given the bill and for the improvements it has made to the bill since it was introduced. 
The International Maritime Organization agreed that the new maritime security regime should come into force on 1 July 2004. This is a tight deadline but the precedence given to the bill by the committee will ensure that we stay on target for meeting that 1 July deadline. 
I would also like to thank everyone who made submissions on the bill. The committee received 13 of them. Submitters tended to support the overall intent of the bill. They recognised the importance of New Zealand being part of a multinational effort to reduce the risk of terrorist attacks on ships or port facilities. Many of the submitters were also aware of the consequences for New Zealand’s overseas trade of failing to comply with the international requirements. In general the submissions did not seek any major changes but sought to clarify further the approach taken in the bill. 
I would like to address briefly some of the more important issues raised by submitters. Part 3 seeks to prevent the unauthorised introduction to ships in ports of weapons and other dangerous items. It contains the power to undertake in certain circumstances screening and searching of any person or anything in a designated port security area. The inclusion of the provisions relating to the screening and searching powers is essentially to future-proof the legislation so that it contains the ability to implement such measures should the need for them ever be established. 
The select committee has recommended that section 43 in part 3 be amended to remove port facility operators from the list of possible maritime security organisations. This is a sensible amendment. Several submitters were concerned that employees of or contractors to a port facility operator may be able to screen search and detain their fellow employees. The inclusion of port facility operators as maritime security organisations in the bill was to enable the system to respond quickly should a threat arise. However given the considerable powers provided for in Part 3 and the need for those powers to be exercised appropriately the committee has recommended that only Government employees should be able to exercise those powers. 
Several submitters also expressed concerns that the bill could unduly restrict legitimate demonstrations protests or strikes. That is not the intention of the bill. However a consequence of the ship and port facility security plans is that at times there may be areas as there are now where protest is not possible. Clarity was needed to allay the concerns of some of the submitters. Therefore the committee has recommended that a definition of “suspicious act” be added to the bill to make it explicit that the definition of “security incident” does not include lawful demonstration protest and strike. 
Several submitters raised the issue of costs resulting from the new international regime. The Government is acutely aware of industry concerns and every effort has been made to reduce the cost of implementing the new regime. Close cooperation between industry and the Maritime Safety Authority in the development of the regime has gone a long way to ensuring that costs are kept down and are related directly to the findings of the separate ship and port facility assessments. 
A number of submissions proposed that the International Convention on the Safety of Life at Sea position of “company security officer” should be defined in the bill along with the associated duties and responsibilities that relate primarily to oversight administration and management. The select committee has not seen fit to accept that proposal. Most international voyages to New Zealand ports are from foreign-flag vessels. Thus most companies’ security officers will be domiciled overseas. This being so it was not deemed appropriate to have such officers as the first and primary points of contact for the New Zealand authorities and port facility officers. Clearly communication with a vessel that is either at a New Zealand port facility or has signalled its intention to soon enter a New Zealand port is best made with someone on board the vessel. Further it would be very difficult to enforce the bill against those people who are domiciled overseas. The bill makes the master who is responsible after all for the safety and security of the ship and who will obviously be on board the ship the primary contact point. 
The duties and responsibilities associated with the position of company security officer will be set out in regulations as will the other mandatory provisions of the International Convention on the Safety of Life at Sea that have not been included in the enabling bill. 
The Maritime Security Bill is one of three pieces of legislation this Government has introduced to safeguard New Zealand from terrorism and transnational crime and to keep our trade and tourist markets secure. I am pleased that the Government Administration Committee considered the Maritime Security Bill alongside the Border Security Bill. Both those pieces of legislation affect ship and port facility operators. The committee has been mindful to avoid duplication between the two pieces of legislation and a number of mostly minor technical amendments have arisen since the committee considered the bill. Therefore I intend to table a Supplementary Order Paper to incorporate those amendments to improve the workability of the bill. 
Given the increased global terrorist risk the bill is intended to address gaps in current maritime security and is a vital step towards ensuring that our ports and the ships visiting them are well protected. I commend this bill as reported back from the Government Administration Committee to the House. 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 As the Minister said this bill ensures that New Zealand meets its international obligations under the International Convention on the Safety of Life at Sea which was amended as members will recall in December 2002 to enhance ship and port security. New Zealand’s obligations will involve assessing security risks for individual ships and port facilities and developing security plans based on those assessments. It will specify security levels at which ships and port facilities must operate maintain communication protocols for ships and port facilities prevent unauthorised access for ships’ port facilities and to restricted areas as one would expect and prevent the introduction of unauthorised weapons incendiary devices or explosives to ships and port facilities. 
The National Party agrees that such requirements would place New Zealand in line with accepted maritime security regulations and contribute to our role in combating terrorism. For that reason National is happy to support this bill. I understand that this bill was fairly low on the Order Paper so I commend the Minister for putting on pressure to bring this forward on the Order Paper so we are able to speak on it today. I believe that it will be passed through under urgency next week. Certainly that is my hope. Ports throughout the country are being required to file security plans with a designated authority. That will be the Maritime Safety Authority and we understand that. However as of today the Maritime Safety Authority has no authority at all to approve and implement the plans. That needs to be done by 1 July 2004 which is a deadline imposed by the United States and the European Union. Unfortunately the legislation before us today gives authority for the approval and implementation of the security plans but of course that has not passed. So we are in a sort of interim period where ports are quite concerned that they cannot actually move forward. 
 This has hugely significant implications for the New Zealand economy and the seafood industry for example of which I am a spokesperson. Exporters are concerned that if this legislation is not fast-tracked in time for New Zealand obligations to be met in place and implemented by July this year then we will have ships parked-up in ports all over the world having to go through long procedures in order to export their food. The European Union the United States and interestingly Australia have already got this necessary legislation in place. The question has to be asked “Why has New Zealand dragged the chain?”. In saying that I am supporting this bill and the National Party is supporting this bill so we will contribute to the fact that we will be able to trade with these international markets and that the seafood industry and other exporters will not be impeded by legislation moving slowly through the House. I commend this legislation to the House. It certainly has my blessing and the National Party’s blessing which will come as a great relief to the Minister. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will be supporting this bill but with qualifications. Of course we do not complain about a more systematic approach to wharf and ship security. That is very clearly useful. But I think that is not so much to catch terrorists. There are not a large number of terrorists zooming through New Zealand ports in spite of the overblown news reports on the weekend that Mr al-Zawahiri had visited New Zealand. In that respect it seemed to be a reporter interviewing his typewriter. The next day he said al-Qaeda had suitcase nuclear bombs and he knew all about that too. We get more misinformation about terrorists coming through New Zealand than truth in these matters. 
The main threat to us that comes through our ports is the biosecurity threat—all the bugs beetles and spiders that will affect our society and our economy. That is the real problem and tightening up security in that respect is good. I do not think there will be a lot of terrorists and gunrunners so in general we support that. It is part of a lot of legislation that to some degree goes a little bit further than it should because of pressure from the United States saying that we have to do this that and the other thing otherwise it will not let ships from New Zealand into its ports. That is a bit of the background to it. 
I am glad that the select committee submission process has succeeded in producing several amendments and the Minister has indicated acceptance of those amendments in his speech. I know that the unions involved on the waterfront the National Union of Railway Workers and the Maritime Union put in a very good submission. They were worried about their people getting unnecessarily affected by this legislation and I believe that the amendments go towards reassuring them. The one the Minister mentioned—that it should not be some employer’s representative searching workers as they go on to the wharf—could lead to a very difficult industrial situation on the wharf if it happened. Amending the bill to make sure that any searching has to be done by an official employee of the Government or the police is clearly a step forward. 
The other amendment the Minister mentioned about putting in a definition of suspicious act—that a suspicious act does not include the lawful exercise of any right to demonstrate protest or strike—only goes part-way to meeting the union’s concerns and the Green Party will be moving an amendment at the Committee stage to take it further down the track. The question of whether a strike is lawful is really for determination in industrial law and in the courts not in terms of this definition. 
Often there is dispute between the waterfront workers and the employers as to what is lawful and what is not. Anyone who knows the history of industrial relations on the waterfront knows that so it is not necessary to put the word “lawful” in to achieve the purpose of not including workers in the performance of their duties or workers who are protesting at what is going on on the wharf or involved in some sort of industrial dispute to make it clear that we do not want them treated as terrorists or whatever under this legislation and subject to the provision of the law in this way. I think there is room. I have not seen the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper yet but he might deal with this question anyhow. I am just taking from what he said in his introductory speech that we might be able to work this issue through to a full resolution at the Committee stage. 
It is also good that there has been a little change in the bill to meet another of the union objections which is that if there were a real security crisis they would have to keep on working with the bullets flying around them. That is now amended. A proposed amendment is that if there were a high-level security incident—called a security level 3—then the workers would be able to absent themselves and not have to face flak from the bombs or whatever. That is a step forward as well. 
The Minister also mentioned the problem of coordinating with foreign flagships who to tell about what and who is in charge etc. I think one of the advantages of this bill may be that it helps deal with what are often rogue operators operating under flags of convenience. We all know that the unions particularly the seafarers here have been very worried about these flags-of-convenience ships—very dodgy ships in terms of their safety and the rates they pay their workers. It is a cheap labour system and they often take shortcuts with anything in sight. 
Also of course they would take shortcuts with security measures. If there were people doing dodgy things with drugs or guns or anything else it is probable that the ships involved in that would be these flags-of-convenience ships. Hopefully some of the security measures in the certificates in this bill will help deal with those flags-of-convenience ships. These measures are being introduced in other countries as well and hopefully they will move these ships out of the equation altogether so that there are much more legitimate shipowner situations rather than those dodgy flags-of-convenience carriers. 
Related to the measures in this bill and with the problems with flags of convenience in mind we could try to use more local operators for domestic transport. The Green Party has been supporting the unions in terms of getting cabotage where local freight is carried by local carriers. I think that would be a security advantage as well as an advantage for the New Zealand economy—local people doing things locally would protect the viability of the shipping industry in New Zealand and the jobs of the workers concerned. 
Another thing that has come up in public discussions on this bill is whether these measures will affect the ordinary rights of people to go down to their local wharves chuck a line off the end and catch a snapper or whatever. That is not something that perhaps applies so much to the big metropolitan ports but I noticed in the  
Timaru Herald  
of 11 March the headline: “New port security not likely to affect public”. In Timaru where people do fish off the wharf people were worried that with the introduction of this legislation somehow the wharf would all be closed off and its recreational element eliminated. But there was an assurance from Prime Port chief executive Jeremy Boyes that although its plan was not available to the public current levels of access including at the No. 1 extension wharf remained the same. So as we go through this process hopefully it will take into account the interests of the public in having the waterfront as something people can enjoy with not too much of it closed off for security reasons. 
It is the same in Wellington and other metropolitan areas and one just needs to walk across the road from Parliament to the wharf. Wellington City is developing the wharf precinct in many ways to the good and we do not want access to the wharf to be unnecessarily curtailed. I do not think it is being suggested in that case but it is something to bear in mind as we go along with these security measures. 
So with those few comments the Green Party will be supporting this bill and trying to tidy up some of those details at the Committee stage. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I can advise the House that the ACT party will be supporting the Maritime Security Bill and I would make the point that we are not represented on the Government Administration Committee. But aside from that we have studied the bill and we support and accept the necessity for the measures proposed under it which is all about wharf and ship security. We are internationally obligated to have that security under the 1974 International Convention on the Safety of Life at Sea which is the root of this legislation and more specifically the port facility security code that was adopted internationally I understand in December 2002. That was obviously a response to the 9/11 tragedy the previous September which occurred just before the adoption of this code. 
New Zealand as a trading nation is far more dependent than most on trade as a proportion of our GDP. Even if we did not like the measures in this bill we have no option but to move within international conventions; otherwise our ships and wharves would not meet the various codes of compliance and our exported and imported goods would suffer greatly. So as a trading nation we are bound to adopt the measures contained in this bill. 
Unlike my Green colleague who has just resumed his seat I believe there is a real threat of terrorism. In the current climate it is naive to think that there is no serious threat—there clearly is. If 9/11 were not enough one has only to look at Bali and Madrid and the follow-up and just read the rhetoric that is coming from some of the international terrorist groups. No country is immune from attack. While we enjoy our lifestyle in New Zealand which is a more casual lifestyle than many countries can enjoy we have to accept that interdependency between nations is now at such a level with international travel and movement of cargoes the way it is that anywhere is a potential target. 
Certainly Australia our key trading partner would be very concerned if we did not adopt these measures because they have a genuine fear that New Zealand is the soft point of entry—the soft underbelly for access to Australia. Australians for obvious reasons face a much greater risk of terrorist attack than New Zealand but it would indeed be a tragedy if terrorist groups used New Zealand to do mischief and cause damage in Australia. 
ACT will be supporting the bill. We have studied it in depth. There are some quite draconian measures that philosophically we have some difficulty with and in an ideal world it would be nice if we did not have to have those sorts of powers and controls. But we accept the harsh reality that in the world we are living in with a real threat of terrorism these measures are necessary and in the circumstances appropriate. 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 United Future will support the second reading of the Maritime Security Bill. Coincidentally about this time last Thursday I spoke on the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill and made the comment that very few of the bills that come before us are such that we must take account of international considerations and that it is important that we as a Parliament are in step with what is happening worldwide. That was one such bill and this is a second one. The Maritime Security Bill is one bill where we have to look continually at our obligations internationally and take account of what is happening there. I agreed with Ken Shirley when he said that we cannot take for granted the fact that we as a small country in the South Pacific sometimes feel a little protected by our isolation from world events. The fact of the matter is that we are not protected by isolation and there is always a risk—and obviously an increasing risk in terms of what has been happening in world events over the past few years—that New Zealand will become a target of terrorism. So our international obligations are very important. In particular New Zealand’s adoption of the requirements under the amendments to the International Convention on the Safety of Life at Sea and under the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code adopted by the International Maritime Organization in December 2002 is reflected in this bill and that is important. 
There is always a balance to be struck when it comes to what can be construed as fairly heavy-handed draconian measures. There is always a balance between freedom of expression for people and the commercial costs that will inevitably fall on businesses as against the need to protect our country from threats from without. I was very pleased to see in the commentary on the bill that the Government Administration Committee took full account of the need not to impose unduly onerous requirements and to preserve the liberties essential to New Zealand as a free and democratic society. I would like to express United Future’s thanks to the select committee—which I was not part of—in terms of the way it approached this bill. The committee sought to achieve a balance and United Future certainly feels that it succeeded in doing so. We are therefore very happy to support the provisions of the bill. 
I note that the Regulations Review Committee had concerns about the broad-ranging effect of clause 74 which gives the Minister the power to extend the scope of the bill simply by Order in Council and by ministerial gazettal of such decisions. I am aware that the Regulations Review Committee is concerned about the extent to which ministerial powers seem to effectively proscribe the rights of Parliament to make law and this is an example of that happening. It is important that it does not happen except in situations when it is truly justified. Therefore the select committee needed to closely look at that matter and it did so. There is certainly some justification for allowing the Minister considerable discretion because of the urgent and emergency situations that may arise and need to be addressed very promptly. 
I am pleased that the select committee has to some extent made some amendments to curb the powers contained in the bill as initially proposed. In particular the Minister’s notice in the  
Gazette 
 expires after 90 days and may be replaced by an Order in Council the bill is subject to the Regulations (Disallowance) Act any Order in Council made before 30 June in any year expires on 31 December of that year unless confirmed by an Act passed during that year an Order in Council made on or after 1 July expires on 31 December in the following year and is subject to the same provisions in terms of scrutiny by Parliament and also there is a requirement in terms of Orders in Council that the affected ships and port facilities must be consulted. Certainly those measures seek to ensure that the Minister’s power is limited to what is necessary in situations of urgency or emergency and do not extend beyond what is absolutely necessary to meet those criteria. I think that that is a very good example of the balance the select committee has brought to the bill and of the fettering of broad executive power by ensuring it is properly reviewed by Parliament. The executive is able to move speedily and without unnecessary barriers which is important but there is also the balance of legislative oversight of the executive power in order to ensure that it is not misused. 
The question of cost also arose in the select committee. Inevitably where there is regulatory authority there is a cost imposed and in this case commercial enterprises will have to bear that cost. This is not an example of a situation where it was possible to leave the security issues to each shipping company or port facility—as is probably the first desirable action—simply because the consequences of terrorist actions flow far beyond shipping companies and port facilities to affect the whole country. Therefore it is appropriate for there to be some national oversight of those security issues and that means there will inevitably be a cost. But it is a cost that we as a nation cannot avoid paying in the world scene we now see. 
Finally there is the question of the time pressure and it is of concern that because this legislation has to be in place by 1 July of this year there is a need for speed. Perhaps I was a little disappointed to see how long the bill remained in the select committee given that only a handful of submissions were made on it. Maybe the bill could have come back to the House a little sooner than it did. Nevertheless we are faced with that situation now. We are also faced with the situation whereby the companies have to lodge their draft port facility security plans in time to enable the designated authority to approve them by 31 March which is of course very very close. We have been assured and this is reflected in the commentary on the bill that the appropriate measures needed to enable that to happen will be put in place so that the 1 July 2004 deadline for implementation can be met. Of course we still have the third reading of this bill to get through so all we can do is to hope that that deadline can be met without undue pressure or without greater pressure being put on the commercial operators who will have to come up with those plans. 
United Future is pleased to see this bill getting through the House. We are pleased that we are fulfilling our international obligations on this issue and keeping in step with other countries in terms of the world environment. We will be supporting the bill. 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 Can I begin by commending the Minister who introduced this bill. I thought his speech was a sterling effort. I thought he canvassed all the important parts of the bill. I know that my good friend and colleague Mr Worth raced down to the House so he could be a part of this debate and I saw the disappointment etched on his face when he walked in and realised that the Minister’s speech had concluded. Can I also say that I looked across at the senior Government whip just before the Minister took his call and she was starting to flag. It is late in the day but since that call she has been invigorated and she has really got back on her game so the Minister deserves our congratulations. [ 
Interruption 
] Oh now the member tells me. 
This is a good bill and we will support it through to the select committee. It is a bill of very serious note. Protecting our trade interests by ensuring security of shipping coming into this country is absolutely critical. There is no doubt that since 9/11 our lives have been changed forever and we need to be cognisant of these issues. The bill calls for a number of things in terms of obligations for New Zealand and I want to touch on a couple of those very briefly—in particular assessing security risks for individual ships and port facilities and developing security plans based on those assessments. 
These protocols are important but I do warn against unnecessary bureaucracy and delay. We need to ensure that the appropriate security measures are in place but I do not want to do it in such a way that the natural flow of shipping and shipping business coming into this country will be unnecessarily delayed. 
The other point I would like to make in taking a very brief call is to congratulate the people who will be on the select committee. The job they have in coming to terms with this on behalf of New Zealand trade and traders is absolutely fundamental. I am looking for Mr Tisch and Mr Ardern in particular to take a lead on this issue given that they have primary production portfolios. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: 
 I would like to take a short call on behalf of New Zealand First to support this bill. Peter Brown has taken a lot of time to work through the bill and has spent a considerable amount of time in discussion with the Minister Harry Duynhoven who has been very helpful. The bill establishes a maritime security framework that is vital to the security of our ports and maritime shipping. We acknowledge that a huge volume of trade comes in and out of New Zealand and it is vital that that is secure. But we also note that tourism is a very large portion particularly the huge cruise ships that come into ports in New Zealand. One cruise ship in Wellington not very long ago even towered over the WestpacTrust Stadium. A ship of that size is a floating city and any attempt to target one of those in port would be a tragedy we would certainly not like to see happen. So New Zealand First supports this bill and looks forward to it passing through its Committee stage and third reading. 
Bill read a second time. 
The House adjourned at 5.50 p.m.